New Video Projects From Shatner

William Shatner continues his quest to become king of the Internet with the addition of a couple of new online projects. Firstly a site called VideoJug announced today a new set of interactive videos of The Shat discussing his “candid and personal views on life, Star Trek and the entertainment business.” And if you want to get more personal, is offering the opportunity to get a personalized video of Shatner signing memorabilia.

Shatner on Trek, the universe and everything at VideoJug
Video Jug, which describes itself as the ‘how-to YouTube’ has put up 30 clips of William Shatner discussing a range a topics in 6 categories (William Shatner…On Fame, On Acting, On Trek Books, On Parenting, On Education, and on Singing/Rapping). The clips were shot this month and VideoJug are discussing adding more from Shatner in the future. Below are the clips for ‘William Shatner on Star Trek Books.’

Check out the William Shatner Channel at VideoJug for the rest.


Get Personal with Shatner via LiveAutograph
William Shatner has also signed on with LiveAutograph a company that “moves autograph signings into the homes of fans. ” The service allows fans to get a personalized autograph from Shatner on items ranging from a photograph, to his cover of Time, to a Diamond Select Bust. In addition LiveAutograph will provide you with a video of Shatner signing your item and he will also personalize the video with a special message or even answer a question. Prices range from $200 to $650 depending on what you choose to have Mr. Shatner sign. More information available at LiveAutograph.

LiveAutograph also offer the same service with Nichelle Nichols (TOS: Uhura) and Walter Koenig (TOS: Chekov)

Some of the items you can get signed (on video)


Plus The Latest Shatnervision
Although Bill is branching out to these other video ventures, his video home on the web is still Shatnervision. Here is the latest from our Shatnervision pals…behind the scenes on for a new Priceline ad.

Sort by:   newest | oldest
Chain of command
January 29, 2008 5:56 pm

Good ole Bill! LOL

January 29, 2008 6:10 pm


Captain Presley
January 29, 2008 6:10 pm

Move over Stern. The Shat is “The King of all Media!”

January 29, 2008 6:12 pm

Oooooh my….

January 29, 2008 6:21 pm

I admire William Shatner and his zest for life. I also believe he may well have pimped himself right out of the new movie with the endless product endorsements and media overexposure.

January 29, 2008 6:24 pm

Oh goody, another round of complaining about Shatner not being in the new movie will start in 5….4….3….2…

January 29, 2008 6:27 pm


Yeah, why have someone who is popular and well known in a Star Trek film?

January 29, 2008 6:28 pm


I would like to kick off this round of complaining about Shatner not being in the new movie.

Only kidding…. I will do no more complaining (tonight that is)

January 29, 2008 6:37 pm

6. NZorak – January 29, 2008
You called it.

January 29, 2008 6:41 pm

When you say Shat, you’ve said it all.

Love ya, Bill!

January 29, 2008 6:51 pm

As this is on topic Shatner and Shatnervision:

Check out video “Weyland Stands In For Shatner”. He comments on team Abrams inability to have Bill in the movie as the “how” is a bit of a no-brainer even to the cast on Boston Legal lol

Old Trek
January 29, 2008 7:12 pm

Has anyone noticed his hair and sideburns getting more “Jim Kirkish” than “Dennie Cranish?”

Harry Ballz
January 29, 2008 7:18 pm

Look, I LOVED watching Shatner as Kirk many years ago, but now….NOW I’d pay real money if he’d disappear for,oh, a week or so….to say that the Shat is OVEREXPOSED is an understatement! That would be like saying Kirstie Alley has “a bit” of a weight problem! Enough already!!!

January 29, 2008 8:05 pm

Man… “The Shat” still has it. I’ve been a fan for quite some time, and I think he walks that line of camp and talent.

January 29, 2008 8:57 pm

Did anyone see the professionalism in the takes?

Darth Ballz
January 29, 2008 9:16 pm

I have something the Shat can sign!!! LOL!

Darth “Long and straight” Ballz

The Realist
January 29, 2008 9:19 pm

Only 16 posts on a shat story! WOW. Must be a slow day at Shat Fans HQ.

January 29, 2008 11:35 pm

All I can say is that William Shatner still played the one and only Starfleet captain I’d ever take orders from (from Picard, I’d take advice and I’d listen very seriously to that advice … with the other captains, I’d just smile politely and pretend to pay attention).

I wince a little whenever I see a Priceline ad, though. From Kirk, I’d take orders. From Salesman Shatner, I can’t even bear the sales pitch.

That said, the Shat is god, now and forever, and if he wants to amuse himself thus, it is not my place to question the Shat :)

January 29, 2008 11:39 pm

Betty White just Shat-ner pants! Has nothing to do with anything, but it sounds funny:^)

January 30, 2008 12:35 am

I wish Bill wasnt so round now, hard to believe that guy in the video used to be Kirk.

January 30, 2008 12:58 am


We couldn’t post; too busy perusing Bill’s online projects. But we are always lurking… :)

bono luthor
January 30, 2008 3:09 am

Still looks like Kirk to me. All be it Kirk at 76. Nothing wrong with that.

January 30, 2008 3:15 am

#12 yeah, i noticed that too…… (doesn’t mean anything, doesn’t mean anything……………………………… or………. does it????????????)


Mrs. Harry Ballz
January 30, 2008 4:45 am

20. Battletrek – January 30, 2008
I wish Bill wasnt so round now, hard to believe that guy in the video used to be Kirk.

Dahling, where’s your sense of adventure? It’s just more cushion for the pushin’, honey. Live and let live. My husband, Harry and I are so much happier living by this motto. Perhaps you should try it as well? Hugs and kisses.

January 30, 2008 4:57 am

I don’t know what video people are watching, but the man isn’t nearly as fat as some of you want him to be.

Either way, his physical appearance isn’t why he’s not in the movie. Abrams came up with his weak excuse, that is bought only by the same people that didn’t want him in the movie in the first place.

Overexposure is a good thing when it comes to promotion. Bottom line is that this decision will affect box office negatively. Not too bright.

January 30, 2008 6:36 am

Well, it seems that people will take anything that Abrams dishes out because it has the label Star Trek on it. That’s not too bright either.

Krik Semaj
January 30, 2008 8:09 am

I still can’t understand why so many people feel that the movie NEEDS Shatner. It doesn’t. It probably could have been done without Nimoy too. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a huge fan of both of them &TOS (I was there from the beginning) but this is a new cast. Let them have their day. Most fans get it, and are looking forward to the new incarnation. The franchise needed new blood, and it finally got it.

January 30, 2008 8:49 am

27. Krik Semaj – January 30, 2008

The franchise needed new blood, and it finally got it.

Then Abrams should’ve been more original. He should’ve moved forwards instead of backwards. How is reinventing the wheel supposed to be an original concept? He’s not providing new blood – just clones.

January 30, 2008 8:54 am

#25–It is only seen as a “weak excuse” by people who think a Shatner appearance is necessary for a good Star Trek movie. How can the notion that bringing back Kirk does not fit into the story constitute a “weak excuse”. Do you feel that it is JJ’s responsibility to spend Paramount’s $130 million to “correct” what you see as someone else’s blunder? I wonder why Paramount did not make hiring Bill a prerequisite, if not doing so is such a “stupid business decision”. Surely they are conscious of the enormity of their investment.

#26–Not true. I have yet to see anything he has done. But I will give anything called Star Trek at least one chance to make me happy. So far, I like where this one is going. Resisting the temptation to bring back Shatner as Kirk may have been the best thing for this film. The truth is, it has been very difficult to enjoy Bill portraying James Kirk in the last three ST films he WAS in. In fact, I cannot enjoy STV at all. This way, I can just remember him as he was in Star Trek for the first 20 years, the great James T. Kirk, instead of seeing him, once again, as the bufoonish Shat putting on a Star Fleet uniform, fistfighting aliens in his golden years, and trying to deliver one-liners the way he has done in the last few films.

January 30, 2008 9:03 am

#29 “The truth is, it has been very difficult to enjoy Bill portraying James Kirk in the last three ST films he WAS in.”

Somebody press STOP. The CD is skipping!


January 30, 2008 9:09 am

STV in its depiction of ShaKaRee and “God” comprises the most compelling film scenes that I have ever known. Inspiring and a masterpiece, although I do admit the rest of the film has flaws.
I hope to thank the Shat in person someday for this climatic sequence from STV.

January 30, 2008 9:18 am

#30–Cute, but you could have directed that at the first person to sink this thread into the abyss of the Shat/No-Shat discussion. If my words are repetitive to you, how about #25’s assertion that “… this decision will affect (the) box-office negatively”, or “…Abrams came up with his weak excuse…”? No. That’s not a broken record, is it?

January 30, 2008 9:33 am

#31–Are you serious???? That movie was a piece of crap!!! Flaws? Are you kidding me? The only thing “compelling” about that awful thing was when it was clear that it was about to end!

January 30, 2008 9:46 am

#28–The spinoffs were never the same. It was never as colorful, the characters never had the “magic” found in TOS, and the 24th Century was far too sterile, boring (last season of DS9 aside), and it just got stale. The only thing about the original feature films that became stale was the age of the actors and the lack of explanantion as to why they all seemed to be stuck under Kirk’s command (with the exception of Sulu). There is plenty of unexplored TOS-era Star Trek history that can be used to restore its original flavor. After all, we pay to see Superman–not Son of Superman.

British Naval Dude
January 30, 2008 10:10 am

#31 Unless he be pulling our pegleg, we have found someone that is actually fond of STV! Hell hath frozen over!

I wanna go to ShaKaRee! – he was the best Bond after all…
stating the obvious: Sean Connery was first for tha part of Spockie’s brother and the namesake of heaven, apparantly… say it slowly… ShaKaRee…

But I must admit, if I meet an obvious Almighty imposter, may I have tha moxy to beg the question: “Excuse me…Why does God need a starship?”

Flashing back to V, I think we all can look fore-ward to what a fine film XI will be thus compared…

No offense to ye, Mr. Shatner…

January 30, 2008 10:43 am

Closettrekker, I’m going to pay $650 to have Shatner personalize a DVD of Star Trek V for you! The message will read: “Glad you enjoy my performance here. See you in ST XI! – Bill”


January 30, 2008 10:53 am

#36–If you do, I’ll sell it to Mr. Regular, since he found it to be “compelling” and “inspiring”. And if I see Bill in the theater, I’ll be sure and hand him a tissue.


Harry Ballz
January 30, 2008 11:03 am

#24 Mrs. Harry Ballz “just more cushion for the pushin'”

Yes, well trust my beloved wife to have this opinion…..

I would say that she’s a “little wide in the beam”, but that would be understating it…..let me put it this way….

If you paved her ass you could open a parking lot!

She was diagnosed with Flesh Eating Disease…..the doctors give her 17 years to live!

She was sunbathing this past Summer wearing a Malcolm X t-shirt and a helicopter tried to land on her!

If she gains six more pounds she’ll deserve her own zip code!

Well, you get the idea………. :)

January 30, 2008 11:05 am

#36–And if you are birthday shopping, throw in an autographed copy of Shatner’s “Rocket Man” (vinyl, please), or perhaps an autographed script copy of “Airplane II: The Sequel”. While you’re at it, maybe you can send me a photo of him in “TJ Hooker” garb, holding on to the hood of a moving car. You are so thoughtful, Shatner_Fan_2000!

January 30, 2008 11:17 am
#29–it’s seen as a weak excuse by anyone who wasn’t anti-Shatner in the first place. The only people who are buying it are the people that are buying into anything and everything Abrams was saying from the beginning. And those people are seeing the movie no matter what. This excuse is just spin control for something that the Abrams team botched very badly. They got negative press for this decision. Bottom line is that if the plot involves Spock time travelling, which it does, and Kirk’s life is saved as a result at any point, which is the rumor, then it makes no sense to say that you can save Kirk’s life at one point, but not the other. It’s just a company line. As has been pointed out by others, Generations existed at every single point in the script writing process, but this excuse did not surface until recently. He never said, “we desperately want Shatner in the film, but the problem is Kirk died in Generations.” He just said, “we desperately want him in the film and want to write a part worthy of him.” As for JJ’s responsibility to correct Generations, by taking on this job, it does become his responsibility–more so by choosing to revolve this movie around Kirk. Someone else once mentioned that as the main protagonist, Kirk’s life and protecting it becomes vital to the future of the franchise. Kirk’s death, for the betterment of the franchise, needs to go from the known to… Read more »
January 30, 2008 11:49 am
#40–Here we go again…. You said, ” it’s seen as a weak excuse by anyone who wasn’t anti-Shatner in the first place. The only people who are buying it are the people that are buying into anything and everything Abrams was saying from the beginning. And those people are seeing the movie no matter what. This excuse is just spin control for something that the Abrams team botched very badly. They got negative press for this decision. Bottom line is that if the plot involves Spock time travelling, which it does, and Kirk’s life is saved as a result at any point, which is the rumor, then it makes no sense to say that you can save Kirk’s life at one point, but not the other. It’s just a company line.” Let’s start by clarifying something. Wanting a film without Shatner is not the same thing as being “anti-Shatner”. It would be difficult to be a TOS fan without having some appreciation for the man’s past work. People are “buying it” because they have no reason to believe that it is wrong. You do not know what the story is, and therefore do not know if Shatner’s return would benefit that story. And it does make sense that he could be saved at an earlier time and not during the events in “Generations”. If Spock (and all of this is speculation) saves Kirk at an earlier time, he is PROTECTING the timeline. If he saves Kirk during the events in… Read more »
January 30, 2008 12:36 pm
Just scroll up in this thread–you will find people talking about Shatner’s age, and calling him fat, and insulting him every which way. That is anti-Shatner, no matter how people try to claim otherwise. And again, there is plenty of reason not to buy into Abrams’ excuse. The fact is, the way the Shatner thing was handled was utterly abysmal. At no point did this excuse pop up until last week, and it contradicts previous comments and actions. So you can buy into everything the man says all you want, but odds are, you weren’t in the “I want Shatner in the movie” camp anyway. The bottom line is that the Shatner debacle has negatively affected the film. Abrams knows this. He has to say something, but I doubt he convinced anyone that he upset with this excuse. Who is to say that Spock is protecting a timeline in one instance, but not in Generations? Who is to say Kirk was supposed to die by Soran’s hand? Kirk’s appearance in Generations required a different form of time travel. And Relics certainly shows a scenario where Kirk is alive, after the events on the Enterprise B. As for the integrity of the Spock character, if anything, it would be inconsistent. He is extremely loyal, and would see the waste of Kirk’s premature death–in any era. Spock would find a logical reason to save Kirk’s life, and do it. Look what he did just to give Captain Pike a chance. If you… Read more »
January 30, 2008 12:40 pm

#18: And your polite smile would last right up to the moment when Sisko would knock your teeth out. After that, I imagine you’d probably listen a little closer.

#35: Count me as another who is fond of ST5. Oh, I’m under no illusions that it’s “brilliant” or a “masterpiece,” but when enjoyed for what it is — a profoundly bad movie — it’s a fun way to spend a couple hours.

#41: “JJ’s responsibility is to use that $130 million budget to make the best Star Trek film he can. The notion that a Shatner appearance (or more specifically, a story that resurrects Kirk) will make it so is an opinion. And the notion that he has to be saved for the betterment of the franchise is just as ridiculous.”

Kudos, Closettrekker, for these well-reasoned arguments. In a perfect world this would be the end of the discussion — but unfortunately I know full well that won’t be the case.

Krik Semaj
January 30, 2008 12:40 pm

#41 Well said
#40 What? The only people upset with the decision to not use Fatner are the 20 or so people on this site who vocalize it everyday. The rest of us are looking forward to this backward look at ST. The rest of the worlds population ( the 5 billion or so that don’t visit this site) couldn’t care less that he is not in the movie. They just want a good movie.

January 30, 2008 1:03 pm

Since the increasingly bitter Shatner/ST11 argument is now heating up in this comment thread as well, I’ll revisit the solution I posted in an earlier article: Shatner could appear as Kirk in a Star Trek: New Voyages episode. It’s a winning situation for everyone:

Shatner: he gets to play Kirk again
Shatner’s fans: they get another “one last adventure”
STNV: gets another huge injection of legitimacy due to Shatner’s appearance
STNV fans: get to enjoy another great episode
Abrams and Paramount: no pressure to shoehorn Shatner into the film (or come up with a contrived and awkward “resurrection” for Kirk)
Nitpickers/Canon police: STNV’s canon status is ambiguous enough that they can take the episode or leave it as they please

It’s a solution that really does cover all the bases and satisfy everyone. I can’t imagine James Cawley would say no to Shatner were he to ask (or vice versa).

Captain Presley
January 30, 2008 1:20 pm

I like STV. I’ll take it over any of the TNG movies.

January 30, 2008 1:33 pm
#42–You are missing the point of my argument about Spock saving Kirk’s life. If Spock travels from what we know as the “Star Trek present” (where the spinoff shows left us) to prevent Kirk’s death years before, he is risking altering the timeline, thus potentially risking the very existence of billions of lives that have moved on since that time. Quite simply, ANY interaction between an “undead” Kirk and anyone else, could endanger that timeline. Think of what has taken place in that timeline since then–Borg Invasion, Dominion War, etc. Those are monumental events in the history of the Alpha Quadrant, and any seemingly subtle change in that could have an equally monumentous effect. For it to be within Spock’s character, such an act would have to take place immediately after the events in Generations–before the timeline would have significantly moved on. So much for tying “present day” Star Trek with the beginnings of the TOS characters! For all you know, this could have been one of the key problems in developing a story, which included Shatner in a significant role. They did identify very early on that Kirk’s death was a problem for them in doing so. I’m not quite sure how you missed that. To me, it seems perfectly plausible that straying from the main plot of the story to “correct” Kirk’s death would not fit into the flow of their story. The only way for Shatner to appear would have been in a cameo role, which he… Read more »
January 30, 2008 1:36 pm

#46–I’m not much of a TNG fan, but I’d sit through a TNG movie marathon before I cursed my senses again with that abomination. As I’ve said before, I just pretend it didn’t happen.

Krik Semaj
January 30, 2008 1:56 pm

#46 I agree with you.
STV rules. It is arguably the best Trek movie ever released in 1989. No other Star Trek movie of 1989 even comes close.

January 30, 2008 1:57 pm

#37 “And if I see Bill in the theater, I’ll be sure and hand him a tissue.”

Good one! Just because I think it’s a mistake to exclude Bill from XI, doesn’t mean I don’t have a sense of humor. :) Let’s just hope we don’t all need tissues!

As far as ST V, I guess it depends on how much of your love for the series comes from the interactions of the Big 3. Because they nailed that in V. Bill, Leonard and De were all terrific together. ST V’s heart was in the right place, and it was better, IMO, than at least half of the bland TNG features.