Kathryn Bigelow, posing with her Directors Guild of America award, is a frontrunner in this year’s best director Oscar race. (PHOTO: Getty Images)

There's a chance history will be made at this year's Oscars.

If Kathryn Bigelow wins best director for "The Hurt Locker," it will be the first time in the Academy Awards’ history a woman has been awarded this prize.

A victory by Lee Daniels, nominated for festival hit “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire,” would be the first win in this category for a black director.

In fact, only four female directors have previously been nominated for best director and only one other black director - John Singleton in 1992 for "Boyz n the Hood."

Among Bigelow and Daniels’ fellow best director nominees, announced Tuesday, are James Cameron - the goliath with his mega-blockbuster “Avatar” - Quentin Tarantino (“Inglorious Basterds”) and Jason Reitman (“Up in the Air”). Click here for the full list of nominees for the 82nd annual Academy Awards.

Even so, Bigelow is in an enviable position: This past weekend she became the first woman to receive the Directors Guild of America’s top honor for her Iraq war drama.

The DGA is a good bellwether for the best director Oscar: On only six occasions since the awards launched in 1948 has a DGA winner not also taken home the Academy Award for directing.

Who do you think should win the Oscar for best director? Tell us in the comments below.

Cameron, who won a best director Oscar in 1998 for "Titanic," was considered the favorite in this year’s race after he took home the best director Golden Globe for “Avatar” last month.

But, Bigelow’s film about a bomb disposal team, a favorite of the critics, is snapping at “Avatar’s” heels after the drama bagged the Producers Guild of America’s best picture award.

As if its history-making potential wasn’t enough to make things interesting, this year’s competition also has some added drama as ex-spouses Bigelow and James Cameron face off against each other.

The Oscars are handed out on March 7.

Are you planning to watch the Oscars and live outside the U.S.? Send your name and contact details to cnnscreen@cnn.com and you could be profiled for a story on CNN.com.

Michael Bay tops the list of Hollywood's top earners. SOURCE: AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Economic downturn? Not for Hollywood’s super rich, judging by Vanity Fair’s list of Hollywood’s Top 40 Moneymakers.

The list, which appears in the March edition of the magazine, puts “Transformers” director Michael Bay on top of the pay pile with his 2009 earnings estimated at a cool $125 million.

Bay edges out Steven Spielberg, who raked in about $85 million, for the No. 1 spot.

Unsurprisingly, the Top 10 is dominated by male, American filmmakers although Germany's Roland Emmerich, who pulled in about $70 million last year for producing and directing disaster movie “2012," takes third place.

Do you think Hollywood directors, producers and stars are overpaid? Or are they worth it? Tell us in the comments below.

James Cameron occupies a seemingly low position at No. 4. But the estimated $50 million he earned in 2009 is only based on “Avatar’s” worldwide gross through December 31.

Todd Phillips comes in at No. 5 on the success of bromance comedy "The Hangover." “Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe - who, along with Emmerich, makes up the international contingent on the Top 10 list– occupies sixth place.

Vanity Fair points out that its rankings are based on estimates and are “presented for entertainment purposes only.” To see how the magazine came up with its figures and for the full Top 40, click here.

Here's the Top 10:

1. Michael Bay, $125 million

2. Steven Spielberg, $85 million

3. Roland Emmerich, $70 million

4. James Cameron, $50 million

5. Todd Phillips, $44 million

6. Daniel Radcliffe, $41 million

7. Ben Stiller, $40 million

8. Tom Hanks, $36 million

9. J.J. Abrams, $36 million

10. Jerry Bruckheimer, $35.5 million

Actress Anne Hathaway and Academy boss Tom Sherak to read out the nominations. SOURCE: AFP/GETTY IMAGES

It took longer than usual this year to announce the Oscar nominees for best picture. But those extra few seconds signaled a major change –- the first time since the mid-1940s that more than five films made the final list for best picture.

Don’t rush to your local multiplex though: the shift to 10 nominees in no way reflects a bumper crop of Oscar-worthy films. If anything, the quality of awards contenders has been somewhat flimsy for the 2009/2010 season.

Foreign-language films and documentaries are nowhere to be seen in the list: rather, the extra slots have been filled out with more of the same, pretty much.

Of course, we don’t know which of the 10 drew most nomination votes - or which got least. One pastime for Oscar-watchers is guessing which films would have made the final five had the old rules held sway –- and which are merely ballast on the ballot.

This Oscar-watcher suspects that “An Education” and “The Blind Side” –- dominated by performances from Oscar nominees Carey Mulligan and Sandra Bullock –- would not make the usual five-film cut. These films are, in this context, also-rans.

Likewise, Joel and Ethan Coen’s nomination for “A Serious Man” signals their popularity with Oscar - but again, they are unlikely to take the top prize with a work that has its admirers but has simply failed to catch fire this season.

Neill Blomkamp’s startling debut “District 9” channeled South Africa’s apartheid experience into a gritty sci-fi flick - and, perversely may have pushed Clint Eastwood's Mandela feature “Invictus" from the final 10. It's well-deserved success has more than exceeded pre-release expectations, but it is too much the genre pic to progress further.

Two features are too close to call for that final-five cut-off point. Lee Daniels’ raw, uncompromising portrayal of black urban life, “Precious: Based On The Novel Push by Sapphire,” will - for shame - likely prove too uncomfortable for voters. Mo'Nique, though, is a virtual certainty for best supporting actress.

“Inglourious Basterds,” Quentin Tarantino’s hyper-stylized World War II spaghetti western hybrid, has arguably divided critics more than any other major feature of the past 12 months. It’s Oscar success is of less note than Tarantino’s welcome return. Look to best supporting actor nominee Christoph Waltz –- who has already taken a slew of supporting actor awards - for its best chances

“Up,” the animation feature directed by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson, displays a spirit and scope lacking from much live-action (had it only been present in Indy 4...), but, Oscar has yet to award the best picture plaudit to a 'toon. Sure it's a contender, but it lags slightly after a heady emotional start. Pixar’s time will come in this category.

(BTW: Don’t be surprised if “Up” fails to take best animated feature: stop-motion animation has enjoyed a high profile this year and filmmaker Henry Selick may get overdue recognition for “Coraline.”)

Oscar-watchers looking for a dark horse should consider “Up In The Air,” whose bittersweet recession-theme chimes with the times. Director Jason Reitman generated much goodwill for “Juno” two years back. His current Oscar-chances campaign can only be enhanced by the presence of lead George Clooney and some witty dialogue that harks back to the likes of “Wall Street.”

But, at this stage of the race there are only two real contenders: Iraq war drama “The Hurt Locker,” helmed by Kathryn Bigelow (who may become the first female to take the best director prize) and “Avatar,” the creation of her ex-husband James Cameron.

“The Hurt Locker” may see success now that America and the rest of the world have begun to gain perspective on the war in Iraq. It’s low-key, gritty approach, echoing TV procedurals like “The Wire,” deserves credit, as do its series of well-observed performances. It tells audiences far more about conflict and its impact than rival bigger-budget, top-heavy features.

“Avatar” has its flaws, especially with dialogue and story - but these cannot distract from its compelling and complete vision. No three-hour film has ever felt so well-contained: Oscar also admires ambition and innovation when it’s coupled to commercial clout.

Either would be more than worthy winners - however many rivals they face.

They don't wear masks or capes, but the filmmakers behind the World Cinema Foundation are arguably the superheroes of film.

Led by Martin Scorsese, these celluloid crusaders are racing to save some of cinema's masterpieces from the ravages of time.

Find out more about what Scorsese, Guillermo del Toro, Wim Wenders, Fatih Akin, Wong Kar-Wai and others are doing to preserve lost movie masterpieces from around the world here.

Watch some of the movies that have already been saved at online movie theater The Auteurs.

To preserve film is to capture history, says Brazilian director Walter Salles. In the latest edition of The Screening Room, we talk to Salles about the importance of saving cinematic treasures and reveal how experts are restoring everything from spaghetti westerns to Charlie Chaplin films.

Watch "Charlie Chaplin restored" here

Watch "Walter Salles on saving films" here

Watch "Scorsese's new mission" here

You can also catch the show on CNN at the following times: Wednesday 27 January: 1730, Saturday 30 January: 0930, 1800, 2130, Sunday 31 January: 0630, 1830, Monday 1 February: 0400 (all times GMT)

James Cameron is king of the world. Again. On Monday, "Avatar" saw its worldwide box-office hit $1.85 billion, eclipsing the record set by Cameron's “Titanic” (1997), and become the biggest grossing movie. Ever. Expect that to grow still further during the coming weeks as it continues to ride publicity from the awards season, where it has become a major player.

The billion-dollar club didn’t exist till 12 years ago, when Cameron’s period epic berthed at screens worldwide and became the first movie to score 10 digits. Since then three other releases have gained entry to the clubhouse.

How did "Avatar" make so much, so quickly?

Like "Titanic," "Avatar" opened late in the year, catching holiday crowds before sitting unchallenged in cinemas through the slack weeks of January.

Had it rolled out anytime from mid-May till late August, its freedom to fend off competing blockbusters would have been curtailed. Sure, like fellow club members, it may well have hit a billion - but no way as fast. Likewise, "Avatar" has shown the value of 3D screens, with much of its cash heap coming from those premium-price seats.

For "Avatar" is event film-making spectacle, the kind that only comes along every few years, that harks back to cinema’s origins in 19th-century fairgrounds. Cameron is a modern-day PT Barnum. The moviemaker who put the world’s biggest maritime disaster on screen is now back with 12-foot tall blue-skinned aliens. In 3D. A movie of that scale is either going to be queue-forming spectacle or car-crash folly - but either way it’s must-see.

In recent years this directorial showmanship has only been equaled by the likes of Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of The Christ," another holder of his own distinctive and particular vision, which many predicted for failure before its filmmaker parlayed it into big bucks.

For whatever its shortcomings - and there are several - "Avatar" possesses a streak of originality that can only be admired.

Sure, it’s a mashed-up rag bag of everything from James Lovelock’s one-world Gaia theory to "Aliens" but, unlike fellow billion scorers, it’s not based on an existing franchise or historical event.

Glance at the other movies lounging in the billion-dollar clubhouse. Aside from "Titanic" (based on a historical event) they are "The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King" ($1.1 billion, released in 2003), the third film in a book adaptation series; "The Dark Knight" ($1 billion, released in 2008); a comic-book sequel; and "Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" ($1.07 billion, released in 2006) -– takes breath -– the sequel to a Disney theme-park ride adaptation.

As such "Avatar" is the climax of the geek decade, when fanboy franchises from "Harry Potter" to "Lord Of The Rings," "Spider-Man" to "X-Men" ruled screens like posters on a 10-year old’s bedroom wall.

But is it really “the biggest movie ever?”

Admissions - or cinemagoers on seats - is arguably a better measure of movie appeal than the kerching of the cash till.

Numbers Web site boxofficemojo.com has produced an inflation-adjusted list for the top movies of all time. Top of the tree? That period romance evergreen "Gone With The Wind," with $1.49 billion at 2010 ticket prices.

"Avatar" trails way behind at 26th, at time of writing, wedged between "Grease" (1978) and "Thunderball" (1965).

But wait. This chart is only for the United States. One feature of the past two decades is how Hollywood has to rely increasingly on international for the bulk of its box office. Around 70 percent of "Avatar’s" box office has been pulled from outside the United States. Expect it to be way further up any all-time worldwide list.

"Gone," released in 1939, played in an era with fewer entertainment distractions: "Avatar" has to compete with TV, computer gaming and music downloads. Movies also tended to enjoy much longer release windows during the 1930s and 1940s, often hanging around cinemas for months at a time.

So which is biggest?

"Avatar?"

"Gone With The Wind?"

Face it. Does such academic argument really matter for anyone beyond industry bean counters and movie journalists?

Or, as Rhett Butler once put it: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

British director Chris Morris' debut feature is a black comedy about British jihadis. SOURCE: Warp Films

Terrorism may be topical but we all know it is no laughing matter.

Up until now our screens have reflected that with po-faced documentaries and intense dramas - which is why Brit director Chris Morris' new film "Four Lions" is such a surprise. It's a black comedy about the farce of terrorism.

"Four Lions," follows the misadventures of a luckless gang of wannabe suicide bombers from Sheffield in the north of England.

It's edgy fare that is familiar terrain for "The Day Today" satirist-turned-director who caused widespread moral outrage in the UK in 2001 with a TV spoof about pedophilia.

Talking after the premiere at Sundance Film Festival in the U.S. Saturday, Morris is quoted in UK newspaper The Guardian as saying he started work on the film four or five years ago after reading an account of a failed terrorist attack. He continued his research even sitting in on terror trials and was amazed by the "staggering" evidence of incompetence on the part of real jihadis.

Warp Films, the production company behind the film said: "As 'Spinal Tap' understood heavy metal and 'Dr. Strangelove' the Cold War, 'Four Lions' understands modern British jihadis."

It's been generating some media buzz since it premiered, although that may be for concept rather than execution: a representative review in Variety called it "ballsy but wobbly."

"Four Lions" is Morris' first foray into feature-length film-making. His debut short, "My Wrongs #8245-8249 & 117," took home a BAFTA for best short in 2003. "Four Lions" is still currently looking for a distributor and there have been no announcements about release dates.

Here's a clip from "Four Lions" on YouTube.

We had a chat with the actor and Sundance founder ahead of the start of the festival Thursday and he told us how he thinks the Internet and digital distribution will keep the indie movie industry alive in the future.

You can read more of what he had to say and look through a selection of the movies showing this year here.

If you've ever wondered what on earth drives obsessive film fans - particularly these days, here's a piece we did about how social media has allowed fans to come together like never before. We think it explains the phenomenon of "Twihards" and "Avatards" to some degree.

You can read it by clicking here.

Meryl Streep poses with the Golden Globe she won for her role in 'Julie and Julia.' (PHOTO: Getty Images)

Or, at least, that's how it would appear as the 60-year-old Hollywood institution became the most-nominated actress by BAFTA ever.

Streep's latest nomination Thursday by BAFTA - Britain's answer to the Oscars –  is for the Best Actress award for her portrayal of culinary legend Julia Child in “Julie and Julia.”

In total she's been nominated 13 times, but, interestingly,  she has only taken a golden statue home once:  In 1981 for “The French Lieutenant’s Woman.”

The BAFTA nomination comes on the heels of Streep’s success at the Golden Globes, where she won best actress in a comedy or musical for “Julie and Julia."

Streep's record-breaking seventh win led the LA Times to dub her the “new queen of the Golden Globes.” Last year, she set the record for most Golden Globe nominations.

The veteran actress is up against a bevy of younger stars and relative newcomers at the BAFTAs, which will be awarded February 21.

She’ll compete against Carey Mulligan (“An Education”), Audrey Tatou (“Coco Before Chanel”), Saoirse Ronan (“The Lovely Bones”) and Gabourey Sidibe (“Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire") for the best actress award.

On the BAFTA shortlist there were few surprises. British film “An Education” was prominent, but so were James Cameron's Hollywood blockbuster “Avatar” and Iraq war movie “The Hurt Locker.” All three tied for the most nominations.

When Oscar nominations are announced on February 2, will it be more of the same? Tell us what you think in the comments below.