Walter Koenig has been a television and movie actor for over thirty years. He is best known as Ensign Pavel Chekov on the original Star Trek series, and in subsequent Trek motion pictures. He also has a recurring role on Babylon 5 as the ruthless psy-cop Bester, and has been involved in numerous theatrical projects, including The Boys of Autumn with fellow Trek alumnus Mark Leonard.

Mr. Koenig appeared at this year's Gen Con in Milwaukee to promote Fleer/Skybox's new Star Trek card game.He graciously took time out of his busy schedule to talk briefly with SHADIS about the game, about life after Star Trek, and about the particulars of the characters he's played.

We would he remiss if we did not mention that Fleet's Star Trek CCG is based upon the original series, and is not connected in any way with Decipher's Star Trek: The Next Generation CCG.

SHADIS: Let's start with the card game. Besides the obvious connection to Star Trek, what interested You in the game, and how did you become involved with its promotion7

Walter Koenig: Originally, I became involved in the game because I am a card collector. I had a good rapport with the people at Skybox, and they were passing me along some of the stuff that was coming out. That established the relationship. More importantly though, I like the game. I like the whole sense of playing out the episodes, and of mixing and matching the episodes [that the game's format provides]. You have one episode, and you can bring in characters from another episode. I like the fact that you can acquire cards, and although the cards may be different from what you have, they still have value when playing the game. Nothing goes to waste.

S: That's true of most CCGs. Have you played other collectible card games before?

WK: I really haven't. This is the first one, and I'm finding it great fun. I haven't mastered them by any means, but I'm certainly finding them stimulating. You can play on several different levels; the more intimate you become with the rules, the more diverse the game can become.

S: You said you've been collecting cards. What sorts of collections, and what sorts of cards?

WK: As a kid, I collected baseball cards, but I also collected non-sports cards. [Nowadays], I collect strictly non-sports cards. With the exception of Star Trek and Babylon 5, I collect only art cards. I wouldn't collect photograph cards at all.

S: You mentioned your two best known TV roles there - there's been a lot of comparisons among SF fans between Babylon 5 and Star Trek. As someone who is uniquely situated to comment on both of them, what do you see as the differences and similarities (if any) between the two?

WK: I don't see too many similarities, other than the fact that both series require that you give yourself the license to imagine, and to try and redefine the parameters of what reality is. You must suspend your disbelief. That's part of the nature of the genre they both occupy, I suppose. I also think that, to some degree, both Star Trek and Babylon attempt to address topical political and sociological issues. I always thought that was meritorious on the part of Star Trek, and I think that [Babylon creator] Joe Straczynsky shares that social awareness. He instills a very deeply-held belief system, which I happen to agree with, into the storyline, and that connects somewhat with what we were doing on Star Trek.

S: How did you get involved in Babylon 5?

WK: Joe Straczynsky has seen me do theatre, and knew my work on Star Trek. We had a mutual friend; I met him through Harlan Ellison initially. He volunteered to help back a play that I was mounting in Los Angeles (The Boys of Autumn). I didn't even come to him, he just saw what we were doing and gave us the money unsolicited, which was really remarkable. He wrote a part for me on Babylon, but I became ill and I wasn't available. When I had recuperated, he wrote a new role for me, Bester, which really turned out for the best.

S: Tell us about Bester. He's not a nice guy, obviously...

WK: (Quickly) But not necessarily a bad guy! (Laughs). After the first episode, I thought he was a villain. As the character has been written, progressively his persona has expanded to something more than just a black hat. I don't like playing cardboard cut-outs; I want my characters to have depth and quirks and interesting nuances. You don't get that with black and white, only- with shades of grey. People are the product of environment or of their genes, and that can make them do terrible things sometimes, but that doesn't make them wholly evil. Bester's like that. He's imperious. He can be hostile. He sometimes goes to great lengths to get what he needs to do done. But he's not evil, and I certainly don't see him as overtly malevolent.

S: How much leeway do the producers give you in playing Bester?

WK: Interestingly, Joe and I were in complete agreement with the way Bester should be played. The show is Joe's baby, and he's very involved in all aspects of it. You would think that that would cause problems for an actor. Sometimes [in a situation like that], there are contradictions within a given character - parts that seem like they're awkward, that they're imposed on the character, that don't seem like they belong. But it's all so organic [with Bester] that even though we don't speak about it - we truly appear to be on the same wavelength with the character. And I think that's marvelous.

I added one thing, a physical thing, that I guess isn't evident to 99 percent of the people who watch the show. And I did ask [Straczynsky] if he had any objections to it, and he said he hadn't. I give Bester a frozen hand. Nobody's ever aware of that, that his left hand doesn't open. I did that in order to bring out this imperious attitude in the character. I wanted to lay an underlying hostility on him as much as I could. (Smiles).

It helps that everyone else is six foot three on the show; then I can stand up next to them and freely use whatever Napoleonic personality traits that I may have.

[The hand] also gives him one more handicap that he has to overcome, and makes him that much more determined, as a character. It's part of what makes him an overachiever. It's never written in the script, though, and that makes thing interesting. In one case, I was wearing a spacesuit and gloves. I asked Joe if I could take off the gloves, and he said "no, not really." The plot demanded I keep it on. So when you see me onscreen in the suit, I've got that hand in my pocket.

S: Any bit of Chekov in Bester?

WK: None. They're completely different characters.

S: So how would the two of them deal with each other, if they met?

WK: (Smiles) I don't think Chekov could stand up to Bester. He really wouldn't be much of a challenge.

S: You had mentioned The Boys of Autumn earlier, which you worked on with Mark Leonard. What's different about acting in the theater than acting on television or in the movies?

WK: Well first of all, when you're doing theater, you tend to play characters who are written more thiee-dimensionally. Unless it's a walk-on, you've got a role that's sustained over two, two-and-a-half hours. So there's more to explore there, just in the written words. Secondly, there's that wonderful period of rehearsal, when you have the luxury of helping to build the character and finding all the little quirks. You're establishing a rapport with the other performers while that's going on, which you don't have in television.

In television, if you're lucky, you sit around a table and read through the words once, then go onto the sound stage and shoot it. The only rehearsal on the sound stage is when you blow a line and do it over.

There's also that wonderful quality of interaction with a live audience. It's an "on the edge" kind of feeling, no second chances. And when there's something like comedy involved, it's very gratifying to hear the response to what you do.

I think theater acting is the true test of an actor's talent, which is innate. Television and motion picture acting is a test of technique, which is learned. I'm not trying to put that down. You need technique in order to function effectively as a performer, to put down the same feelings and the same emotions over and over again. It brings a consistency to each take that allows different angles to be cut together. That's something that's really a consequence of training, of just doing it until you've got the experience down.

S: So what's next on your agenda?

WK: Well, I'm definitely doing more episodes of Babylon 5. I'm slated to do four this next season. I've also had an inquiry about guest-starring in the pilot to a television series from England called Legend, I believe. That would go in November.

I also have an outline for a television series called Alien in Wonderland that I've been trying to sell, which was inspired by George [Takei], Jimmy [Doohan], Nichelle [Nichols] and myself. It's not Star Trek, we won't be playing Star Trek characters, but we would be principals on the show. It's a very off-the-wall, Monty Python-style program; the closest thing I could compare it to, I suppose, would be Douglas Adams' work.

Away from television I've had some conversations with an editor from Starline publishing, and they're interested in having me do a science fiction novel. Right now, we're trying to determine what exactly the subject matter will be, but I'm excited about it. Then there's a Star Trek CD ROM game that they've been talking to me about.

S: CD ROMs... a project like that blurs the line somewhat between movies and games, and makes interaction with the audience more of a reality. How does one approach the production of something like that?

WK: Not all that differently. I did another called Maximum Surge awhile ago. We shot that with a 35mm camera, we shot backgrounds with a blue screen, we shot in a cave. Except for the fact that I talked to the camera - or to the "player" that the camera was supposed to represent - it was very much like making a movie.

S: Would the Star Trek game involve Chekov, or something else?

WK: Yes, it'd be Chekov. I think the project involves three of us. But the deal hasn't been made, and we're still in the negotiations stage, so I really can't say anything officially.

S: We're running short on time here, but we've gotta ask: would you consider doing Chekov again? In a movie or on one of the television shows?

WK: I wouldn't say 'no' out of hand. I turned down the Generations offer the first time, even though it involved a not-inconsiderable amount of money. There was nothing there that I hadn't done before, and I didn't see the point. They asked me to come in, and I made some suggestions, which they included in the script. That made things easier.

Unfortunately, they excluded them once it was shot, and everything that I had suggested was edited out. I can't believe that that was Machiavellian, I think it was just a matter of cutting what was most expeditious. They wanted the picture to be a designated length, and the stuff I had done was really not indigenous to the story and was the easiest to excise.

But would I do it again? I suppose, if there was something worthwhile there. But I don't really anticipate that anymore. I really feel that my active participation as a character in Star Trek is over.