Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Chilling portrait of the Man behind Curtain
For 8 years in the 2000s we all joked that Dick Cheney was the real President of the United States and that George W. Bush was a mere puppet president. I still remember Bush coming out and reading speeches from cards to the press in his early months as President, which gave us a glimpse of how unprepared he was to be President. I even remember hearing the "President Cheney" joke in early 2001, months before the September 11th attacks. Many of us assumed that Dubya was likely just a mouth piece, but I don't think anyone in the general public realized just how deep Cheney's authority in the White House was. This documentary shows the world very clearly that Dick Cheney was indeed the real man "in charge" of basically everything that happened during the Bush Presidency. Or shall we say, the Cheney Presidency. George W. Bush only seemed to have a technical authority over Cheney, but Cheney was the one in charge. Cheney was running the show during 9/11 and Cheney was the one who pushed for the Iraq War. Bush Jr. was just a figurehead, a bumbling tragic fool who was way in over his head.
Never in United States history has there been a Vice President who wielded so much power and influence. Never in American history has there been a Vice President who pushed around his President the way Cheney did to Bush. It's humiliating to see how much control Vice President Cheney had over President George W. Bush, who probably was a good guy who unfortunately was manipulated by much more nefarious forces like Cheney and his neo-cons. President Bush 43 often hated how former President Jimmy Carter would openly criticize his policies. I have often thought there many similarities b/w Bush 43 and Carter, despite one being a Republican and one a Democrat. Both men seem smaller then the Office of the Presidency, the difference is that Bush 43 had cockiness to him that masked his ineptitude and ignorance, while Carter had a sharp mind but lacked an ability to make firm decisions.
I'll admit it was interesting seeing Cheney's early life and back-story, it gave the man a more human face. Like many politicians Cheney excelled at most things he attempted in life. He was a successful jock in high school, class president and his girlfriend was one of the more popular girls around. He was accepted into Yale where suddenly he turned into a beer guzzling slacker and eventually dropped out. Now Cheney's transformation from early 20s Yale dropout slacker to mid 30s White House Chief of Staff is nothing short of extraordinary and unprecedented. It is certainly something to be admired and should serve as an inspiration to everyone of all walks of life and ages. As a person he is an unquestioned success, but as a man of political office he is the face of power unchecked. Those that are in the pro-Cheney camp will likely love this video b/c the interviewer generally lobs softballs at Cheney and Cheney answers with his usual robotic monotone voice with no follow up or counter point offered. Imagine if a Democratic ticket had a figure head President while the Vice President was the real person in charge, calling all the shots and ordering the President around. The outcry from the right would be never ending, and Republicans would be hysterical with claims that a tyrannical liberal federal government is running the country into the ground.
History will likely go easy on George W. Bush, he can be written off as too dumb to know any better, but Dick Cheney will always be viewed as the murderous crook he is. Let us always remember that back in 2000 America elected an emperor who brought his own brand of terror to the world while pulling the strings on Dubya all the way. Cheney is hawkish and unapologetic for the Iraq invasion or the enhanced interrogation techniques used under what was basically his administration, which will likely please those who view his actions as a loyal patriot instead of a certified nutball.
Classic 1970s show, it was even better as Summer Reruns in the '80s
"CHiPs", what you can say. The California Highway Patrol got the best PR they could ever hope for in this classic buddy cop show from the 1970s. Built on comedy and riveting freeway chases, Larry Wilcox and Erik Estrada starred as officers Jon Baker and Frank "Ponch" Poncherrello. The series immediately found an audience, especially with children because of it's fantastic car chases and entertaining action stunts. It was guaranteed that a car would flip over or someone got thrown off a bike or flopped face first into cement in every episode. It didn't matter if they were so obviously staged, no one else was doing such things back in those days so it was fun to see it on CHiPs. There just had to be chase on the freeways in each episode, and they surprisingly hold up today. I guess a high speed chase at over 90 mph in 1977 is the same as one that happens in 2007. That's another thing, watching this series it's amazing how little life in North America has changed in the past 30 years. Only the fashions, music and obviously some media oriented (internet, fast computers, flat screen plasma and LCD TVs, palm pilots, etc, etc) electronic technology has changed. Otherwise look at how life in 1977 is still so much the same as 2007. It's weird watching Ponch and Jon today and reflecting that I'm now around the *same age* (freaky!) as those guys were back then (late 20s-early 30s). I see them in an entirely different light today then when I viewed this show as a child, as I can relate to more of their life and understand their still relatively young adult problems.
CHiPs had a tendency to be cheesy, especially with the way Erik Estrada hammed it up as Ponch. But who cared, Estrada and Wilcox had terrific on screen chemistry (even if they didn't get along in real life), that you just were glued to TV to watch these guys chase bad guys. The corny nature of the show has famously turned off people who were older and "too cool" during CHiPs run, but they missed out on a great TV show if only had they been children. Who cares what they think now anyway, they're old farts in 2007. Although CHiPs was clearly a '70s TV show, it actually ran over into the early 80s and in my opinion probably found it's massive cult audience in the 1980s. CHiPs was rerun ENDLESSLY in the '80s. It was on every freakin' day, Monday-Friday. Home sick from school? Watch CHiPs. Holidays? Make sure to watch CHiPs. And of course the summer months, watch CHiPs, usually airing at 8am or 4pm, sometimes both timeslots. Rainy days were and still are great for CHiPs viewing. Basically what I'm saying is that this is a show that didn't have a lot of depth to it, which is why children were so hooked onto it. It makes fantastic viewing for anyone that wants to pass the time with nothing but pure TV entertainment, with enough adult sensibilities going on to make it still very watchable. I slightly missed the original run of CHiPs, either I wasn't around or was too young, but I grew up as a child in the 80s and every single damn summer I watched CHiPs. I wasn't alone, every kid who was 12 and under in the 80s watched this show during the summer months. What an awesome way to pass an hour when you had no school. The cops never drew their guns and the violence was almost non-existent, this is a series that could never be made today. You got the day off from work and it's raining outside, time to watch an episode of CHiPs.
The Path to 9/11 (2006)
Bill Clinton sank the Titanic too
ABC's "Path to 9/11" really isn't all that bad as a movie. It's actually quite entertaining, and at times nostalgically takes you back to the early-mid 1990s. But the movie is clearly biased and implies that the Clinton Adminstration bumbled their way through the handling of terrorism, which ultimately led to the attacks of 9/11. Former President Bill Clinton and his aides are portrayed here as either buffoonish and/or soft.
Surely Republicans will think this is a great movie, as it portrays Clinton in a bad light. So of course conservatives will hail this movie as a masterpiece of factual truth-telling. The movie hints that former President Bill Clinton was so marred in his public scandals that he neglected going after Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists. The movie makes no secret of it's views that the administration blundered attempts at nabbing Osama bin Laden. Bill Clinton, the supposed root of all evil in America is of course the man we should be pointing our fingers at.
For years Republicans would blame Clinton for everything. And they are obviously still doing it.
1.If the economy is doing bad, it can't possibly be because of sitting President George W. Bush, no it's because Clinton's evil policies in the 90s are finally catching up to us. And conversely, the good economic times under Bill Clinton had nothing to do with him, no they were because of all the fantastic economic theories that former Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. implemented in the 80s and early 90s that took their sweet time to catch up to President Clinton.
2.The moment September 11th happened, there were cries that Clinton was responsible. Clinton is to blame for everything.
3.Clinton flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
4.Clinton fought with the passengers of United flight 93.
5.Clinton is best friends with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
6.Clinton blew up the space shuttle.
If the terrorists attacks happened under Clintons watch, Republicans would make you think that Clinton would assuredly have acted like some burnt out old hippie chanting "make love, not war" while marching in a gay and lesbian parade. Lord knows what the conservative reaction would have been if Clinton actually was president when the attacks had happened. It would have been even MORE Clinton's fault. Would Republicans have rallied around President Clinton? That's a tough sight to picture. So here is a movie to vilify the radical neo-conservative thought process. People will obviously compare this movie to Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911", but Moore is a man with a reputation for being a grade A nut-burger. Moore is known for distorting the truth and people walk into his films knowing that he is entertainment. ABC is supposed to a be a reputable network.
So how can a supposedly TRUSTED and REPUTABLE network like ABC promote a movie like this? It's even being pushed as an educational tool, which is outrageous. Here we are 5 years AFTER September 11th and the Bush Adminstration still hasn't found Osama bin Laden! Of course it's all Clinton's fault. Look if conservatives didn't want that Showtime movie about Ronald Reagan aired, then why do they want this film pushed onto the public and especially our schools? Yeah, you conservatives can keep hitting the "not useful" feature for my article so as to bury it in the back pages, but you know what I say is true and you know you are not being fair to the former President.
Daughter of Darkness (1990)
I would LOVE to watch this movie again!
I remember Daughter of Darkness from 1990, I was 14 at the time (hard to believe that part of the 90s is 15 years ago!) and I found to be a very compelling film. This was a great little flick by made for TV standards, and they had a unique take on vampire lore. From what I remember, the vampire's tongue had some sort of fangs or pricks on it. I remember this film being VERY sexy too. It turned me on at age 14 back then. I would probably think it's stupid today, but I would still love to watch this again. I wish I could say more about this movie, but I just don't remember enough. It aired on CBS from what I remember. What I was doing watching CBS at age 14 back in 1990 I can't tell you. In 1990 CBS was still the 45+ year old peoples channel.
Teen Witch (1989)
The kind of movie that makes me embarrassed to say I grew up in the 80s
I grew up in the 80s. I'm 29 years old today and I turned 14 in 1989 during the year this silly, campy film came out. I don't remember this movie coming out in the theaters or at Blockbuster Video back in 1989. In fact I had never heard of it and Robyn Lively (she was a great low grade late 80s teen star) is the only recognizable name here for me. I caught it on TV recently and it was like watching a train wreck that I couldn't take my eyes off of. This film about a teen witch played by the lovely Robyn Lively seems like a real caricature of the 80s, and doesn't capture the late 80s well at all. I was embarrassed as hell watching this cheesy flick. The movie looks like it was filmed earlier then 1989, like perhaps 1986 or 1987. Who the hell was still wearing those cheesy bandannas in 1989? Yuck. The loud and campy fashions are atrocious here. Why is it that I'll watch some kid movies from the late 80s and it gels from how I remember it generally being in real life during the actual 80s like The Wizard, Big, License to Drive, and the great The Lost Boys? Even the TV shows I remember from back then got it right like Full House and Growing Pains. But then I'll watch something like Teen Witch and just think, "WTF were we thinking walking around dressed like that?" A lot of the more gaudy pre-1995 fashions leave that taste in my mouth.
Forget the stupid plot of this film, just sit back and have a good laugh by looking at the some of worst of the 80s. The garish fashions are just gross, and you'll feel the need to take a bath after a Teen Witch viewing.
Family Ties (1982)
A quiet, intellectual, but HILARIOUS sitcom...
Family Ties was not like the more boisterous shows of its era like Three's Company or The Cosby Show. And it certainly is not like the modern day sitcoms with constant audience cat calls with the hootin' and hollerin'. Family Ties was a more quiet and intellectual series about Baby Boomers who had older Gen Xer kids. The show used intelligent witty humour instead of sight gags and slapstick comedy. I must disagree with others who say the episode with Alex grieving over his recently deceased friend. That was the WORST episode(s) of the entire series! I didn't care one bit about Alex's unseen friend that we never knew.
People may say that the creators were tying to make a statement about the greed and materialism of the 80s by having flower power children from the 1960s raising teenagers and children in the 1980s, but I always saw them portraying the liberals/Democrats in a bad light while propping up the conservatives/Republicans. The parents Steven and Elyse, are made out to be the old school way of doing things. The hip, young and cool kids Alex, Mallory and to a lesser degree Jennifer and Andy, are made out to be the new way of thought. The kids were nearly always right and the parents were seen as dim witted old fools. A reverse All in the Family, indeed. The kids here are about Republican individualisim, and the more modern hip way of doing things in the 80s, versus the crusty old bleeding heart liberal "peace corp volunteer" way of approaching life that were the ex-hippie parents. So I do not believe at all that Family Ties was anti-conservative and anti-80s.
But my God, how time flies. For instance it is interesting that Family Ties premiered in 1982, with ex-hippies raising 80s teenagers/children. If we do the math, then the frontline Gen Xers that were Alex and Mallory's age would today be in their late 30s and would be the ones raising teenagers and children! Back in the 80s the parents Steven and Elyse seemed like regular "grown ups" to me, its only now in my own adult hindsight do I realize that if they were hippies in the 1960s then they must have most likely been young parents of teenagers because they were still in their 30s (and not yet middle aged) when the show first started 1982. Regarding the kids on the show,---Alex was in college through most of the series, and looked about 16 in 1982, with Mallory probably 15 and Jennifer looked about 9 or 10 years old. So now it's obviously already 2004, over 20 years later!!! Family Ties was about generation gaps in the 80s, but those older, frontline teenagers from the 80s are already 37-40 years old today. Eh, I guess we all have to get old and Gen X wasn't going to stay cool forever! ;)
Now this is how you make an animated series based on superheroes. "Super Powers Team: The Galactic Gaurdians" aired in 1985-'86 and it was the last SuperFriends show based on the Justice League of America from the 1973-1986 run. In my opinion, this was also head and shoulders the best. The animation is greatly improved from any earlier SuperFriends show. The characters act like mature adults, and a few of them even have some distinct personalities that separate them from the rest of the JLA. There were also no stupid teenage tag along like Wendy & Marvin or Zan & Jayna on this show. And thankfully, no stupid animals like Wonder Dog or Gleek. A new character Cyborg is introduced, he is an African American teenager, but he is not a silly background extra that screws up and gets captured repeatedly so Superman and Green Lantern could come save the day the way the previous non-White heroes (Black Vulcan/Lightning, Samurai, and Apache Chief) did on the other shows. Cyborg is a great character that is not a cardboard cut out of Superman. Firestorm is back from the "Super Powers" series from the previous year, and he too is in top form. Wonder Woman acts, well like a woman and we see her life more fleshed out. Superman even behaves more adult like and does not have the ridiculous God-like powers he had in the 70s. The Batman in this show is more in line with the comic book character.
Here Batman behaves like a very mature grown man, a man that is tormented over his compulsion to go out and fight crime. He is also a detective in this show like he should be, and not a blundering buffoon that pulls out all kinds of stupid gadgets from that little utility belt. 'The Fear' is a stand out episode that illustrates the difference in Batman in this show from the previous SuperFriends. It is ironic that this Batman is the most serious, since he is voiced by Adam West who played the idiot Batman in the 1960s TV series. Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman, and Samurai don't get a whole lot of time devoted to them, but at least they don't do anything embarrassing.
The JLA team primarily butts heads with the villainous Darkseid and his cronies Dessad and Kavlik, but the Joker and Scarecrow turn up in two episodes as well. I always get the feeling that the two "Super Powers Team" series from the mid 80s doesn't have the incredibly loyal Gen Xer following that 1978's "Challenge of the SuperFriends" enjoys because Darkseid and Dessad were too comic book heavy for mainstream viewers. The plots could be a bit comic book heavy as well. That and I think children were just burned out on SuperFriends by 1985, the whole thing had been around for 12 years at that point. "Challenge" was a great and memorable show no doubt, and DC comic book villains like Lex Luthor and Black Manta were there, but the Legion of Doom tended to formulate rather childish plans to knock off the SuperFriends and rule the planet. Nevertheless a kid today will probably look at this show and still laugh at it while finding a ton of problems with it (because there are problems). "The Super Powers Team" is not nearly as rounded out as the current Justice League animated series. But I remember being blown away by how far the whole SuperFriends deal had come since the stupid early years of the 70s when Wonder Dog or the annoying space monkey Gleek would hang around the Hall of Justice with those kids. A long way indeed. Watch this show, "SuperFriends: The Legendary Super Powers Team", and "Challenge of the SuperFriends". They are the 3 best ones, with "The All-New SuperFriends Hour" and "The Worlds Greatest SuperFriends" being not all that bad and entertaining at times. The worst one remains the original "SuperFriends" from 1973-1977.
Super Friends (1973)
This was the first "SuperFriends" TV series from the original 1973 to 1986 run, but it's also THE WORST. The great thing about the rest of the SuperFriends shows, even the more kiddie "The All-New SuperFriends" and "The Worlds Greatest SuperFriends" was that they all have tremendous repeat value. You can watch them over again as adults and not get too bored with them, this is especially true with the more mature "Challenge of the SuperFriends" and the two "Super Powers Team" shows. The original "SuperFriends" from 1973 is made for kids that are no more then 6 years old, with 4 year olds seemingly the target audience. This is a horrible show that is loaded up with all kinds childish stupidity.
The traditional Justice of League of America members are here, but they don't fight any DC villains or any kind of interesting villains at all. All they do is encounter regular human beings that have gone bad and they try to change their ways with a Seasame Street type moral lesson. To make matters worse, there are two annoying kid tag alongs in the teenagers Wendy and Marvin, who are all decked out in their funky 70s clothes. They even have a silly pet animal in Wonder Dog (a Scooby-Doo wannabe if I ever saw one). The kids don't have superpowers they're just regular people, but they get to hang around the JLA team and always make stupid comments and do stupid things. Marvin even walks around in a flaky t-shirt with a superhero like "M" on his chest and he also wears a little cape. For me it's always been a toss up on whose the more annoying kid tag alongs,---Wendy & Marvin and they their pet Wonder Dog? OR the kids from the planet Exor that were Zan & Jayna and their blue space monkey Gleek? They were both jacked up ideas, but I guess the Exor kids have a case just because Zan and Jayna have some kind of superpower, however lame they were. The various SuperFriends shows are part of the Generation X culture (people in their 20s and 30s). But any Gen Xers that think they are retro cool by saying "Wonder Twin powers, activate!!", need to beaten to a pulp. None of the SuperFriends incarnations boast truly excellent animation, not even the great "Super Power Team" shows from the mid 1980s, but the original "SuperFriends" were drawn by the 2nd unit Saturday morning crew all the way. Just stay away from this show, it's not worth the time and effort to watch. I myself regret bothering with this piece of trash.
The Best one for Mainstream audiences
"Challenge of the Superfriends" from 1978 was the best Superfriends show for the mainstream viewer who is not a big superhero fan, but nonetheless enjoys entertaining tales about them on occasion. Like the other two previous shows, the Justice of League of America were compromised of Batman & Robin, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman and led by Superman are set up in the Hall of Justice. Supporting superheroes like Hawkman, and the hilarious "minority superheroes" like Black Vulcan/Lightining, Samurai and of course the one everyone loves to laugh at---Apache Chief were there to help out. For whatever reason, the Mexican superhero El Dorado from the previous show didn't get the equal opportunity call back from Superman and Wonder Woman in "Challenge". The minority superheroes were just background extras, if they did something it was usually to simply advance the plot by screwing up and in need of rescue from the White heroes like Superman and Green Lantern. They were hilarious because of all the well intentions of having non-White members on the JLA back in 1978, it still reveals the deep ingrained bigotry and lack of sensitivity of the times with those superheroes stupid ethnic names, being nothing but minor role players on the team, and tendency to just mess everything up for the rest of the JLA. Aquaman and Hawkman could be useless at times, but at least they weren't so embarrassing as the non-White heroes.
Personally I think the two "Super Power Team" shows from the mid 80s were the most mature and best Superfriends TV series period from the various incarnations from the original 1973 to 1986 run, but with the Justice League constantly battling more comic book heavy villains like Darkseid and Dessad on those later two shows, I can understand why a non-comic fan would be less then enthusiastic about them. "Challenge" is my favorite of the non-Super Power Team incarnations. "Challenge" is the best one for mainstream fans that just want to be entertained by a good yarn. Compared to the earlier shows, "Challenge" was a bit more mature and had the Superfriends acting more like true DC comic book heroes, battling real DC villains in the Legion of Doom. "Challenge" took itself more seriously and finally got rid of annoying kid tag alongs and goofy animals that plagued the previous early-mid 70s incarnations like Wendy, Marvin, & Wonder Dog, and those teenage "wonder twin" idiots from the planet Exor that were Zan, Jana, and that damn monkey Gleek.
Every episode had the evil Legion of Doom, led by the ever scheming Lex Luthor, coming up with diabolical plans to rule the world and get rid of the Superfriends. The Legion all gathered together in their mobile Hall of Doom, shaped to look like Darth Vader's mask. The Legion was made up of a great cast of characters, Solomon Grundy, Sinestro, Bizzaro, Scarecrow, Captain Cold, Grod the Gorrila, Riddler, Brainiac, Black Manta, Toyman, and Cheetah. Then there was the dominatrix like redhead Giganta, a favorite of mine because she was barely covered up in an animal bikini and was running around barefoot with ankle bracelets. Giganta could become a 50 ft giant like Apache Chief, and they both suffered the same problem of wearing a skirt while becoming giants. Giganta had a very small role on the show but well, she turned me on as a little kid.
Of course the Superfriends would always win at the end, and the viewer knows this, but it's still always so fun to watch these episodes and see how close the LD comes to knocking the JLA off. I loved the background music on this show, especially the creepy music they played in the swamps when they showed the Hall of Doom. There was some pretty hilarious humour here too on occasion, like when Lex Luthor called Superman "Stupidman" or "Superfool". Or when Lex beraded one of the lesser LD members for saying something stupid the way Bizzaro often did. And just when the Superfriends think they have captured the LD, they would escape somehow or the Hall of Doom would fly overhead and beam them all back up. There were problems with this show for sure, for some reason whenever the script demanded it Flash and Batman had superhuman strength and could even fly like Superman. Wonder Woman didn't display her own superhuman strength nearly enough. The JLA characters didn't have much of a personality difference either, Robin was always a whiny little girl, but everyone else basically acted the same. For instance what difference was there between Green Lantern and Superman? They both acted the same. The animation was usually Saturday morning flimsy. Kids today will probably laugh at this show for the bad animation, miscues with the animated characters and the actors voicing them, and the sometimes hokey schemes of the Legion of Doom. But overall the stories on "Challenge" are still very entertaining. This is a fantastic and memorable show, I highly recommend "Challenge of the Superfriends", it's a Generation Xer favorite.
A Bold but often Unintentionally Hilarious effort
You have to give the producers and actors of this show some praise for at least TRYING to do a live action Spider-Man. As unintentionally funny as this pilot movie and the series that followed could be, I was always glad that someone actually attempted something with Spider-Man like this. The problem here is that this show had a limited TV budget, and of course it was made in the 1970s where the technology was very primitive. So the creators of this movie were just way in over their heads here with what they were trying to do. It worked in the 70s for the Incredible Hulk and Wonder Woman where only simple stunts are needed, but doing Spider-Man requires a large budget and adequate technology. They didn't have the money or time to build sets on this show, so they actually used real New York buildings and real people!! It was outrageous and it did expose the silliness of the Spider-Man character. When you watch this show and see Spider-Man climbing up a REAL skyscraper 50 ft off the ground or dangling from a REAL helicopter, you realize that in no way can anyone EVER be Spider-Man, even if they did have the proportional powers of a spider.
The origins of Spider-Man from the comics are simply ignored here, and many characters are omitted. Peter Parker does get bitten by a radioactive spider, but as an over 25 year old graduate student in college, not a high school kid as he is supposed to be. There is no Uncle Ben, no wrestling arena, and no murdering thief. Aunt May is here, but in a brief cameo. Betty Brandt is not here, but there is a cute African American secretary in her place by the name of Rita. J. Jonah Jameson is there along with Robbie, but a needlessly grumpy police detective always hangs around. Nicholas Hammond at first glance is not the ideal Peter Parker, for one thing he just looks too old. Peter Parker was about 15-23 in the comics. Even though Hammond was in his 20s like the current Spider-Man Tobey Maguire is, Hammond just looked like he was about 35 or 36. Maguire was 25 when he was first cast as Peter/Spidey, but at least he looked like he was still a kid. Hammond in no way looked like he was 16. Hammond also came across as way too worldly and experienced compared to the way Pete should be. He just seemed like he knew a lot about life compared to the Tobey Maguire version or the comic book Peter Parker. And Hammond's Peter Parker acted far too mature to the way Peter traditionally is. You can tell that Hammond's Peter Parker has been around the block multiple times.
Now the great thing about Nicholas Hammond is that he DOES GROW ON YOU. So if you go beyond this pilot movie and watch the TV series, after a while you start to realize that Hammond does have many Peter Parker qualities;---he has a "nice guy" type of charm and decency to him, he's also thin, not too muscular, and he's a regular looking guy that is not super studly or anything like that. In the end I think Nicholas Hammond is a fine and worthy addition to the Spider-Man legacy, and it seems like the creators of the 90s animated series paid tribute to Hammond by drawing Peter Parker in his image. Since there is no Uncle Ben or thief in this movie, Peter Parker has no real incentive to be Spider-Man. He just makes a costume and does. Spidey only has one webshooter in this movie, it's on the outside of his costume and it shoots out some kind of string or net about 10 ft.
This show debuted in the 70s before my time, but as a kid growing up in the 80s, I would catch this 70s Spider-Man show every once in a while. And back then it was a real treat to see this, even though it looked so mental. Again it was great JUST HAVING a live action Spider-Man. Any kind of live action Spider-Man. Peter Parker/Spider-Man's powers are considerably toned down on this show. He does have some kind of weird super strength that comes and goes, but in no way does he ever come across like he could bench press 10 tons like the comic book Spidey can. Spider-Man did climb up walls, but it looked odd the way he did it in this movie. And he never webslinged across New York on this show, the most Spidey webslinged here was about 4 ft from one ledge to another. This movie and the series that followed for 1 year was without question pretty freakin' stupid, but you have to give them some credit for trying.