system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that actors who prepare for roles by doing something extreme are less impressive, not more impressive, practitioners of their craft. CMV

We've all heard stories about this: "Actor McActorson prepared to play the part of a homeless guy by sleeping rough on the streets for a week. And throughout the whole of the six-week shoot, he never took a shower and ate out of dumpsters!"

When I hear that, I don't think "wow, what dedication". I think … it's *acting*. Your job is to *pretend* to be cold and hungry and smell bad. If you are actually cold and hungry and smell bad in real life, your performance impresses me *less*, not more.

I also think asking to be addressed by your character's name on set or (a well-known example) remaining in a wheelchair and being spoon-fed are unreasonable demands to make on the crew of the film. 

I don't know if it needs any further explanation, but to spell it out -- to me, an actor who can dine on delicious food and sleep on a comfortable bed, then turn up to work on set and convince me that he's hungry and homeless is the better practitioner of his craft than someone who needs to actually feel cold and uncomfortable to convey those feelings to an audience. 

I believe that when actors prepare for roles by doing extreme things in real life, that means they are less impressive, not more impressive practitioners of their craft. The same goes for weird behaviour on set. 

CMV.
gpt
You know - you're missing a key part of this debate.

Are their performances good?

If another actor can do the same without the same effort, they are undeniably more skilled, but the belief is that actors who do method acting ARE better.