series to flesh out the universe
Does that mean elaborating on events left ambiguous in the novels? such as storylines that take place in Narnia between the novels but which are left completely to the screenwriter's imagination? or elaborating on plot holes, such as how Shift the monkey involves the Calormen in his takeover of Narnia (in "The Last Battle")?
If that is the case, then I am not sure that I would welcome it. I do not always enjoy the way in which a writer sometimes expands on characters or events which the original author skipped over or left ambiguous. I've often thought that such sub-plots encourage a reader's imagination, giving him something to ponder about, let his imagination wander, and even get to discuss with friends or on the internet like we do here.
I've read today that DC intend to do something similar with Alan Moore's "Watchmen", but Moore himself will not be involved. It does not feel right somehow not to involve the original writer (especially given that this one is still alive).
My motto has been: if you enjoy the book then avoid the film. That has applied to "Harry Potter", "The Lord of the Rings" and even adaptations of "Tintin" books. I did not like the way in which the 2011 movie had Sakharine as the villain when Herge had him as a decent, if annoying, man whom Tintin unjustly kept suspecting of being a crook.
I suppose that it depends on the director, screenwriter and actor, but very often they fail to capture the essence of a story or character as depicted by the original writer or how the readers imagine them while enjoying the original books.