Maybe a better question would be to ask if the trick was deceptive. I read about the method (a version was used in Thurston's show) and cannot unsee that. To me it appears to be transparent.
Personally I find that any time I know a method to a trick, particularly when it comes to stage illusions, the method seems absurdly transparent. This is true for most of magic, though. The secrets of magic are often absurdly simple - as Teller is fond of pointing out. I avoid learning methods that I have no intention of using myself for this reason. It helps me enjoy magic shows more.
Since stage illusions are the genre of magic I probably know the least about, I honestly do not know how this is done. Other than the obvious point of it being a tricksy box. So, to that end, yes I'd say it's deceptive if you don't already know the secret (or, at least, if you're as ignorant in general to the methods of stage illusions as I am).
That is why I phrased my response that way - magicians have knowledge that very few other people have. So, when it comes to various genres of magic, they will be more difficult to 'fool'. But who cares? Most likely magicians aren't the ones paying you.
Ironically, I find it generally quite easy to 'fool' magicians by simply doing what I say I'm doing. They're too busy looking for a method, they forget to consider that I might just do it for real.
If you have an example I would like to see it.
To be blunt, most of the magic industry. Grand illusionists in particular.
There may be different paint themes on the crate, but a sub trunk is a sub trunk. The performance is largely dictated by the props in these cases and it's just very difficult to make them seem any different from one another. In the case of a sub trunk - There's two people performing, one goes in the box, one stands up on the box. The one on the box lifts a curtain and drops it, and then it's the one who was in the box. The one who was standing on the box, is now in the box. The lines they say may be different, and the level of entertainment can vary wildly from one act to the next, but as soon as someone wheels out that trunk anyone who knows anything about magic knows what's about to happen.
Moving away from stage illusions - how many people do French Kiss? Invisible Deck? Twisting the Aces? 3 Fly? Crazy Man's Handcuffs? Sam the Bellhop? ACR? The salt-shaker-vanish thing? Silk TT vanish? Linking Rings? Cups and Balls?
How many genuinely unique versions of those tricks exist - where a lay audience would actually think it's different to another presentation of the same plot/method? One could argue that Yann Frisch, Paul Gertner, and Ricky Jay all have distinctly unique cups and balls routines - but how many people essentially copy Gazzo?
It's not just magic. I'm a hypnotist, and I can't stand 'comedy hypnosis' shows. They are even more cookie cutter than magic shows.
Derek Delgaudio spends the first 25 minutes of In and of Itself NOT performing magic. These 25 minutes are entertaining, but it's not magic.
I'm not sure I agree with you there, but that's going to come down to a matter of opinion. I think Delgaudio's entire show demonstrates very well that 'magic' has very little to do with sneaky moves and routines. I'm not going to go into detail about what happens in that show, because I think everyone should watch it and experience it themselves - but, the way he opens the show puts everyone into the right frame of mind for the rest of the show and it sets everything up for the following material.
When I created my first show, I opened with a recitation of a poem. It's a piece I still use to this day. There are no tricks at all: I recite the poem, using Tarot cards as visuals for the words, then at the end I simply put the cards into a jacket pocket and move into my introduction. This piece sets the mood for the rest of what I do. It immediately grabs the audience's attention and tells them multiple things, on a subconscious level, about what they are about to see.
Like I said - this is subjective opinion and I don't expect you to change your mind. I can respect that difference of opinion.
Some effects are deceptive and some are not.
This is a magician's perspective.
Outside of conventions, I doubt the vast majority of audiences are ever thinking about whether something is deceptive or not.
They're thinking about how it made them feel, and what it made them think about. If a layman goes to a magic show, and leaves thinking about how deceptive the act was, I would argue that performer did not do a very good job. If a layman is thinking about methods, that means they weren't engaged, they weren't all that entertained - they were just puzzled. Personally, if an audience leaves my show thinking I was super deceptive, then I have failed as an artist and performer.
And to call back to what I said earlier in this post - lay audiences are who pay me.
So the 'deceptive' factor isn't really important to whether a trick is 'good' or not. A good trick entertain and engages the audience. If that happens, they don't care about methods because they won't even be thinking about that.