Titanic has now made more than $2 billion in the worldwide box office charts, making it the second film in history to reach break the two billion barrier.

The epic romance, starring Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, was the first film in history to gross more than $1 billion. For a staggering 12 years, Titanic remained the highest grossing film of all time until it was overtaken by James Cameron‘s fantasy sci-fi, Avatar.

In 2009, Avatar became the first film to hit the $2 billion mark after it took $2.8bn at the box office. However, after Titanic ‘s 3D comeback, it too has exceeded this milestone figure. The 3D re-release cost $18 million to transform the film into 3D, and took over $190 million in cinemas.

Titanic, which was Winslet’s big break, proved particularly popular in China where the film set a new record for the biggest opening of all time.

While most people enjoyed reliving the film, a number of cinemagoers were left feeling disappointed after Chinese censors decided to tamper with one scene in particular.

The cut occurred at the famous moment where Winslet strips off so her lover, Jack, can sketch her. In the new version only her head and shoulders are visible on screen. It’s thought that it was changed in order to stop viewers reaching out and ‘grabbing’ the Oscar award winner’s hologram breasts.

According to The Telegraph, an official at the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television feared that: ‘viewers may reach out their hands for a touch and thus interrupt other people’s viewing.’
He added: ‘To avoid potential conflicts between viewers and out of consideration of building a harmonious ethical social environment, we’ve decided to cut off the nudity scenes.’

One Chinese blogger in particular was not happy about the decision and wrote: ‘I waited 15 years to see 3D boobs, not a 3D iceberg.’

It’s not because I secretly love a good rom-com, but prefer to watch predictable plotlines play out under the guise of something slightly more high-brow. It’s not because I know a great deal about history, or literature, or wearing one’s hair in ringlets. Above all, it’s not because I’m a hopeless romantic, harbouring notions of marrying my own Mr. Rochester and living in a stately manor.

There are, however, several slightly more valid reasons why this genre has remained particularly compelling. Many frown upon the notion of nostalgia, but in a world where it is films such as Kidulthood and Fish Tank which are often cited as being accurate representations of modern-day society, is it any wonder that audiences yearn for bygone eras? Is there anything wrong with wanting to watch a film where women might marry for money, but they don’t drag men into the nearest portaloo to pay off debts from an outstanding drugs deal?

The cinematic experience is, after all, largely about escapism. Period dramas have an advantage in that they transport their audiences to another world – and yet it is one which we know existed not so very long ago. While a handful of cinema-goers reportedly experienced so-called ‘Avatar withdrawal’ – whereby they struggled to live in the real world after experiencing the beauty of Pandora – the majority were able to understand that the setting was entirely fictional. It is far easier to identify with idealistic representations of times gone by, than of eras which may or may not be yet to come.

A number of period dramas are also based on great literary works. This is not simply good news for those who have an upcoming exam, and have failed to get past the first chapter of the recommended reading. The plots, characters, and scenarios of period pieces are those which have already stood the test of time, as well as being of historical interest. They may be set before the audience was born, but the psychology and moral heart of a period film can ring truer than many contemporary stories. For anyone who’s ever sat through one of Eddie Murphy’s worst films, or one of Adam Sandler‘s latest, it can come as a horrible shock when the credits roll and you realise that you won’t be getting back the last couple of your life back.

On the contrary, there is a reason why we’ll willingly watch umpteen adaptations of Pride and Prejudice – and it’s not just for Colin Firth. There is a reason why we’re still captivated by the likes of Heathcliff and Cathy, a love story which was first told on screen as early as 1920, whilst more modern heroines (Juno? Carrie? Bella?) may already be failing to hold our interest. Along with the stunning costume designs, the impressive attention to detail, and the carefully crafted scripts, period dramas contain insights and emotions that are relevant for many cinema-goers, myself included.

Read ‘Why I Won’t Watch a Period Drama‘.

Ahead of the release of the action, and alien, packed John Carter this Friday, we thought we’d come up with a quiz to test your knowledge of all things extra-terrestrial and awesomely alien. So have a go at our questions, to see if you really know your stuff about old and new planetary goings-on.

3D films, when I was a child, involved a pair of glasses with one red lens, and one green. They were made of coloured plastic and cardboard, and films back then were in standard definition. In 2012, the whole thing is plastic, though the lenses are no longer red or green, and now even some home televisions are both high-definition and 3D-capable. But it’s just a gimmick, right?

Many would argue that it isn’t – that Avatar was just the beginning of many great films making use of this old-but-new form of visual trickery. But the statistics, taken from The Guardian, would indicate that this may not be the case.  3D seems to be losing it’s appeal, and I think the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the quality of storytelling in the films themselves, rather than the technology being put to use.

Case in point – Toy Story 3. A wonderfully crafted, funny, moving tale, and one that had me in tears throughout its final minutes, realising that this was the end of a trilogy that I had revisited since childhood. But its use of 3D did not set the bar; anyone will tell you that when it comes to visual effects, few can match the might of Disney’s CGI machine, Pixar. Depth-of-field and the fact that the whole film contained no live-action content whatsoever helped us accept the surreal nature of appearing to be able to see around things.

But with, say, Clash of the Titans, the reality is that the quality of storytelling played second fiddle to the visual appeal, and for that reason, any film will suffer. Transformers, 9, even Avatar suffered from bad storytelling (or in Avatar’s case, pinched storytelling), generic action sequences, and CGI and 3D usage simply for the sake of having it there. When it’s of no real benefit beyond public spectacle, it defies logic to imply that it’s worth the price increase.

However, take a film like A Scanner Darkly, where rotoscoping was in heavy use, and the protagonist’s grip on reality frays throughout, 3D could be put into use as a true artistic tool. Each shimmer and perspective would twist our insides, emphasising the surreal aspects of Philip K. Dick’s masterpiece without thrusting explosions and other Michael Bay-esque go-to devices towards us in the hope we’ll grin and clap and pay for more.

Will the technology see yet another resurgence? I’d imagine companies like Sony certainly hope so, given that 3D HDTV technology was a significant investment, and to see everyone abandon it less than two years after its second or third ascent to mainstream popularity must be very frustrating. Especially when the success of the platform would help fund other technological efforts, such as Sony’s SimulView – the ability to use 3D to watch two non-3D videos (or games) at any one time by broadcasting two feeds, one on each “side”. Sounds good, right?

This is all without even mentioning the many issues with 3D – some are finding 3D not only uncomfortable, but sometimes actually painful to watch, and that goes even for 3D hardware that doesn’t require glasses, such as Nintendo’s handheld console, the 3DS (which has a slider to control the strength of 3D effects – something some cinemagoers would find useful).

Frankly, these days my 3D experiences go like this  - I watch the film as I would normally, occasionally marvel at some use of the technology, but spend more time comparing glasses-on and glasses-off than the aforementioned “ooh, that’s good.” 3D is, and always has been, a fad, and the sooner it goes out, the sooner people churning out vanilla action cinema are going to have to take a step back and realise that 3D is no longer there to distract people from the woeful writing. Well, I say this, but let’s be honest – even a ban on CGI might not accomplish that one.

Most people tend to hate on Keanu, but I really like his acting and his work in general. But to see him doing a documentary is very interesting – projects like that come from a passion for the subject, not money – one would guess, at least.

Traditional film – that is, non-digital film – is dying, and Reeves has sought out and interviewed everyone from George Lucas (Star Wars, THX 1138) to James Cameron (Avatar, Terminator), Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, Hugo) to David Lynch (Eraserhead, Mulholland Drive), with the intent of hearing how they feel about film cells passing into history in favour of the digital medium.

It looks interesting, thought-provoking and – if you’re not too well read up on the history of filmmaking – educational. If you were into Channel Four’s recent The Story of Film documentary series, you’re likely to enjoy this. The trailer is below, and the documentary will première at the Berlin International Film Festival in February of this year. Enjoy the trailer.

Back in January we found out that Brit actor Henry Cavill won the coveted role of Clark Kent in the film that the The Dark Knight team, Christopher Nolan and screenwriter David S Goyer, are also working on.

Adams, who is a three-time Oscar nominee, found out on Sunday via a phone call from Snyder himself. Speaking about the role Snyder said:

“There was a big, giant search for Lois. For us it was a big thing and obviously a really important role. We did a lot of auditioning but we had this meeting with Amy Adams and after that I just felt she was perfect for it.”

We don’t know exactly what her role will involve, but Snyder has said she will be “a lynchpin”.

“It goes back to what I’ve said about Superman and making him really understandable for today,” he continued.

“What’s important to us is making him relevant and real and making him empathetic to today’s audience so that we understand the decisions he makes. That applies to Lois as well. She has to be in the same universe as him [in tone and substance].”

We think Adams, who from Enchanted to The Fighter has been excellent in whatever she has been in, will make a great Lois Lane. She and Cavill are joined by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane who are playing Superman’s adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent.

Snyder is currently promoting his latest film, an action fantasy called Sucker Punch, which is released in the UK this Friday.

A remake of a 1966 film following a team of scientists being zapped down to microscopic size and sent into a human body to save the life of a colleague, Fantastic Voyage has already been parodied countless times and is ripe pickings for Family Guy and the Cartoon Network brigade.

However, it’s also ideal for someone looking to make a huge amount of cash by turning it into a 3D extravaganza of strange environments, cool technology and a group of hero nerds. No surprises Avatar‘s James Cameron is involved with the film’s production, then.

However, it’s been a while since the project was announced, and still no director had been found. Enter Shawn Levy, the man behind Night at the Museum and Cheaper by the Dozen. Certainly not the person you’d slot into this role, traditionally, but then again it’s always refreshing to see an accomplished film expert step out of their comfort zone and do something wonderful.

However, the film-fan community have raised a few valid points, notably why James Cameron is always so heavily involved with films that seem to be largely under his direction rather than, well, that of the director. Hopefully this won’t be another self-indulgent CGI fantasy, but with 3D films, that’s usually the case. More on this as it develops.

The Avatar director is said to be working on a family film, using a range of the well-loved Cirque du Soleil performances. He is working closely with the Chronicles of Narnia director Andrew Adamson, who has come up with a storyline.

Apparently both Cameron and Adamson have been working together for a while on this project and have already filmed some Las Vegas performances of the show. Not much else is known at this stage other than that there is likely to be a series of films, which will all incorporate Cirque du Soleil in their storylines.

Cirque du Soleil is a hugely popular circus company which mixes traditional circus arts with street entertainment. Over the years they have created various shows, which have had successful runs all over the world.

So, what do you think? Will a 3D film version be as good as the real thing?