GineokwKoenig

My experience at Babylon 5 was an unqualified success, extremely rewarding. I know it sounds like I'm a 'company man' saying it, but I loved it.

When I started with Star Trek in the 60's there was a real caste system in the industry. There were the stars, then there were the supporting characters. It was a climate that crept into the set as well. There was a separation based on the size of your role.

Babylon 5 was 25, 30 years later. I believe all of television moved towards more of a balanced sense of equality, it was a better atmosphere.

Having said that, I didn't get to work with everyone on Babylon 5, mostly the command on the space station. While I spoke to Andreas many times, we didn't work together. However, he was incredibly talented and skilled, loved by his castmates and the front office, and his passing was a terrible loss.

No, I was born in Chicago, grew up in New York. My parents both had an accent, my mothers was an amalgamation from all over, born in Lithuania but lived in England. My father was multilingual, and had what sounded like a Russian accent.

I didn't even have a 'Russian' accent on the show!

First of all, evidently I got the role despite the accent. It's been quoted to me several times over the years that Gene hated it, but thought i had the right look for the character.

I tried to recall how my father spoke who had passed away several years earlier, and I bought a book. It told me how to pronounce the words, but didn't give me the... melody of the language. I think that's where I failed in my representation of the language. It didn't have that melody.

I wasn't a fan of the show prior to appearing on it, and actually I didn't become part of its audience afterwards either. That notwithstanding, it was a fantastic experience. The show is very cleverly done, very entertaining, and I think that all of the Star Trek actors who participated had a great time.

It's one of the best experiences I've had on something Star Trek related in any form.

Ultimately, the appeal of playing a hero or a villain is based on how well developed the character is. It's more accurate to say that it's more fun to play a dimensionalized character, whether it's a hero or a villain. It's the challenge of digging into strong feelings, strong attitudes, and giving them voice. It's the creative process that's the most engaging.

I don't qualify the value of a character based on their positioning in the story, but rather how much I can explore who that character is, and express myself as that character.

It's quite true, in general, more attention is paid to the role of the hero. They make the decisions, they are put in conflict, their actions have greater consequences. As a result, that's usually where the better to play characters are. However, occasionally, a villain is so vibrant, has enough baggage of their own, and enough screen time that there's the opportunity to give them all of the shading usually reserved for the hero.

It depends, as always, on the script. Usually, it's the hero role that's the most fun, however. If you are given a flat character, you add what you can.