That's hard to do, other than the approach to costumes.
Well, one could argue that with a lot of comic book movies. Because you're a fellow Spidey fan, I'll use Raimi's movies as an analogy.
Comic Goblin wears green spandex, purple elf boots, and a purple nightcap. Raimi made it more real by giving him a green armor type suit. Fans hated it, but it was more believable than the comic book costume.
None of Doc Ock's various costumes from the comics were used. Not even the slick armani suit. He was given a simple trenchcoat. Simple, more believable, but looked great. The A.I. in the arms is also very modernized for this day and age. His comic ones never had such a thing.
Harry wasn't even a Goblin. He wore some black outfit and used a green hoverboard thing. Not terrible, but not very interesting to look at. But more believable than his Goblin costume in the comics.
I meant moreso in spirit, in that we got such a radical departure from the classic comics. JOker wears makeup rather than having bleached skin. Ra's al Ghul isn't immortal. Two-Face went on a vendetta rather than becoming a master criminal.
Again, I could say the same about the Spidey movies. Doc Ock was a misguided soul trying to complete his life's work, rather than being an evil criminal mastermind with aspirations for taking over the city, or even the world. Green Goblin was simply a guy trying to save his company from greedy board members who try to boot him out, and developed a fixation with Spider-Man, instead of being a criminal mastermind who tries to take over the City underworld.
Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer, and a desperate father stealing money for a sick daughter, instead of being a hardened criminal.
The only one I won't throw in the mix is Venom, because I think Raimi actually improved on him character wise. But basically all of the villains were watered down versions of their comic book counterparts, to be made more believable, and sympathetic.
All this to appeal to real world sensibilities. That is what I mean. Not that he did the exact same thing that Bendis & Millar did. (God, no. I don't like that line any more than you do. Trust.) But rather that he dithced the more familiar conventions for the 21st century.
I see what you're saying, but I say again that I think you're mistaking a mature approach to Batman with what the Ultimate line does, which is deliberately being different from the regular line of comics, otherwise what is the point of having the Ultimate line if they just repeat what 616 does? You might as well stick to 616.
Incidentally the Ultimate line was conceived because publisher Bill Jemas wanted to reinvent the Marvel Universe because he felt that, with over 40 years of back-story, it had become inaccessible to new readers, and he wanted to start with a reinvented Spider-Man.
