I was not aware that old school Ultimates could be performed from neutral. I didn’t play the old games, and suffice it to say from what I have seen and read of them, I don’t hold them in high regard. That’s pretty irrelevant here, though, and doesn’t really affect my view on Ultras and possibility of Ultimate implementation.
Considering the current game, specifically in regard to damage scaling and the emphasis on the cashout mechanics, to allow an unbreakable cashout for “the rest of their life” from about 15%, provided one can succeed in neutral (by accessing the combo system within which one performs an Ultra) or succeed in the combo system itself (by comboing into the Danger state without being broken) is what makes the Ultra an interesting game mechanic. By allowing it to achieve it’s own success (for instance, a frame trap into Ultimate or wake-up Ultimate), I feel like we would be losing a large part of what makes so many close matches intense, or “hype” - we (the players and the audiences) become more focused on nuance, and keep our heads in the game, looking for a neutral success versus a window to slip a super into. Perhaps the distinction is minor to some, but I think it’s actually quite a large difference.
To make another SF comparison - can anyone truly argue that they WANT “wake-up super” in KI? I’m pretty sure we are all familiar with the stigma, and the current design of KI’s analog keeps it wholly out of our lexicon. I think that’s a good thing. 
I also don’t think essentially giving every character without a battery ender a once-per-match battery ender would make for a significantly more interesting experience. We would just see them opt for “mini-Ultra” at the end of every round the option presented itself, instead of them deciding whether or not to continue a certain combo/juggle path, and how far, relative to the per-hit meter they could build versus the rate at which continuing the combo would provide the opponent instinct (unless, of course, the opponent has full INSX). I think the current system is indeed overall more interesting than the suggested alternative.
I’m not actually clear about HOW Brutalities work, and I’ll be honest - I forgot they existed. I don’t play MKX. Though, I agree with your analogy. Ultimates should be much more like KI’s answer to Brutalities than Fatalities. Brevity!
And, for the SFV stage transition example, forgive me here, I quit playing that very update - can you actually choose NOT TO affect a stages parameters? I thought it just sorta happened, I have no idea how it actually works. That said though, the only thing that changes is the stages corner parameters. The following round, both players start center stage with unaffected meter and equidistant from the corners. Way I see it, no, that does not make for a significantly more interesting game than otherwise. It’s just a silly animation, and maybe a farther march to the corner depending on how the round works out.
And, @FengShuiEnergy - while I am definitely one of those folks who would only ever pick the training stage (presently I only ever pick Devil’s Landing, cuz bad eyes and fossil rig)… it’s really not the same thing. That’s an apples-to-pterodactyls comparison.
