Thought you all may be interested in this. Does anyone know exactly what Lewis had against McDonald’s views on UR.
Speaking as someone with a LOT of study (and writing) on Lewis’ theology: he never said straight out why he thought MacD was wrong (or maybe he did and its in the only-recently-released collections of letters, most of which I haven’t read yet); but he did make some statements about why he thought universalism was wrong; and he hints in The Great Divorce that in arriving short at annihilationism he was following MacD that far anyway.
(In TGD pseudo-MacD is a proponent for Lewisian annihilationism over against universalism, though Lewis didn’t quite dare to make his “Teacher” repudiate the possibility of universal salvation altogether. 
In doing so, Lewis does reference MacD’s statements from one of the Unspoken Sermons to the effect that if God can’t save everyone from sin then sooner or later God would surely annihilate them so that evil would not continue to exist anywhere in God’s creation. Obviously Lewis thought this is where MacD should have stopped short, with maybe a vague technical possibility of universal salvation–just as pseudo-MacD does in TGD.)
His main reason elsewhere is pretty clearly that he thinks the general thrust of scriptural testimony is against it, especially in the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels (to which he would apparently add RevJohn, based on how he makes use of it indirectly in various fictional and non-fictional ways.) Even though Lewis realized that a good case could be made for Saint Paul teaching universalism, he thought either Paul had to be wrong about this or else Paul had to be interpreted as being consistent with Jesus against universal salvation (despite any appearances otherwise–the point being that interpreters must be wrong no matter how good their case might look.)
So he would have doubtlessly disagreed with MacD on that. On the other hand, while Lewis never interacted oppositionally (so far as I know) in print, against scriptural arguments exclusively in favor of universalism, he did cover some of the same material to an extent of soteriology that goes pretty far beyond most Arm (not to say Calv) theologians–which is why he believed (or at least strongly suspected) that Christ could and would covert and save sinners out of hell post-mortem (not merely Roman Catholic notions of purgatory), as well as save formal non-Christians post-mortem (who would be found to have been Christians after all, per his interpretation of the sheep/goats judgment and Romans 2 among other things.) These are all positions, with basic exegetics, that knowledgeable universalists are also familiar with. (Even ultra-u’s, though they would interpret the same verses somewhat differently so that no salvation out of hell itself was involved.)
Otherwise, metaphysically speaking, Lewis had a sort of vague notion that, out of love for sinners, God would allow sinners to beat Him and become completely immune to God’s attempts to save them; and then out of love for those same sinners God would annihilate them out of the existence He let them get into out of love for them (or at least out of existence relative to the rest of creation’s time-flow, if not out of existence in relation to God’s eternal reality; they aren’t balefired out of all past history, for example!)
Not that he spelled it out in that kind of detail–Calvs would immediately pick up on the inconsistencies, too. But that’s what it amounted to. As a great fan and student of Lewis, I am sad that he was so sloppy on this when he was so precise and competent and helpful in so many other matters. (Doubtless, this is how Lewis felt about MacD, too, to be fair. 
)
Lewis’ earlier belief in ECT, as a new convert to Christianity, involved only that God would out of love keep sinners in existence in the sin they had locked themselves into despite God’s best omnipotent and omniscient efforts. That didn’t seem loving enough to him, and soon afterward he started studying MacD’s theology (instead of only appreciating his fantasy), which was one of the things that led Lewis to a loving annihilationism instead. Since MacD’s belief in loving and omni-competent persistence to universal salvation was right out.
In case anyone is curious, the article is about rights for the film being bought back in 2009, and the holders looking for someone to fund it.
That hasn’t happened yet, and I have trouble seeing that it ever might happen. It’s waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too Christian (and too critically Christian) for a mainstream audience; but also features some things about hell and salvation that most Christians either don’t believe or would be uncomfortable to be seen supporting (even if they hoped for it secretly. Or for something even better. 
) So who exactly would this sell to?
That doesn’t count overcoming the problem that the novel is quite anecdotal in structure, without a strong narrative line. And while it has some occasionally striking visuals (including some interesting visual/tactile themes), the set-pieces on which the book is hung amount to one person (usually Lewis the narrator) having a relatively static conversation with someone else, which rarely results in anything positive being accomplished. (The two ghosts in the book actually saved out of hell don’t talk to Lewis at all!–and one only might be saved, we don’t know, the scene moves away before we learn the resolution. As pseudo-MacD makes a point to mention. 
)
A relatively inexpensive indie-film might get away with doing that and hope to recoup costs over time on DVD sales and rentals, maybe. The comedy, such as it is, is quite British; BBC might do it as an English literature legacy project.
According to IMDB, it’s slated for this year. Also, Beloved Pictures is still featuring a description it on their website.
My thoughts are that our post-modern culture would embrace it. They seem to be willing to lap up anything other than (especially more merciful than) the traditional afterlife view; this might be refreshing. At the very least, I’d like to see it! And I’m sure they’d change the narrative a bit to make it a smoother film while still keeping with the theme. Who knows. shrugs
No book has ever opened my eyes to my own self deceptions as this one has. I hope the producers of this film will give it the time and money it deserves to bring this most incredible journey to life. I also hope the writers and directors do not put their own agendas into the movie but rather allow the allegory to stand as it is. I look forward to this movie but I must confess to more than a little apprehension.
Sorry for the delay; the ad/mods who check the new-post-approval list for new members (myself included) have been out of pocket for the past month. 