Yeah, if you want a skirmish system that focuses entirely on interesting yet balanced combat, then 4e is definitely the game for you. But if you want time for something other than combat, then 5e is probably the better choice.

Traveller's careers don't really count as classes. I don't think they're anything more than a skill and gear distribution system, are they?

Skills have been toned down a lot. They don't go through the roof like the used to. Instead, you have a few skills, which means you get a moderate bonus to those rolls. And that bonus goes up slowly (no extra +1 every level), and DCs are much more moderate, which means you can still fail even if you have the skill, and even without it, you can still succeed. It's just less likely than if you have the skill.

Then you should look around a bit; there are plenty. Cortex+ systems (like Marvel Heroic Roleplay, or Firefly) have an interesting way to make flaws relevant without going overboard. FATE based systems do something similar with aspects that can be positive, negative, or even both.

Aren't those optional? I believe there's loads of optional stuff in 5th edition, so players can easily tweak it to be more old-school, story-based or skirmishy, depending on their taste.

Opinions vary of course, but I don't think "I wack it really hard with my sword, but only once per day" makes all that much sense, really. Mind you, I've never been much of a fan of the "Vancian" magic system of D&D (that allows you to cast each spell only once). Pathfinder let go of that principle a bit by allowing cantrips (0 level spells) to be recast as often as you like. 5th edition continues along that path, both with more powerful cantrips, but also spells don't scale as hard with your level anymore: if you want your Magic Missile to become more powerful as you reach higher levels, you'll have to use a higher level spell slot to cast it. Meanwhile, fighters get more fancy stuff to do on top of wacking stuff with their sword. Hopefully this will balance classes a bit more without making them all feel the same.

5th edition is not a step backward; it does take elements from 4th edition, but only the best parts, and it also takes the best parts of previous editions, molding it all into a surprisingly coherent whole.

Yes, but that might make the initial comment valid for the previous edition, not this one. This one is as old-school as D&D has been in a long time. It combines the simple character creation of early editions with more streamlined customization options than the 3rd edition and Pathfinder have. It doesn't try to cover every possible case with an overdose of mechanics anymore. It's less MMO-like than 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

Didn't he retire to a life of sex and drugs, preferably of the illegal kind?

I'm all for privacy, but I'm not sure if that argument gets more weight if it's John McAfee who says it.

There was a proposal once to replace the airbag in the steering wheel with a steel spike.

Simply moving them from mythology to a superhero universe is already a fundamental change. Marvel has made many, many, many other changes to Thor. In fact, when he was first introduced, it was as a normal human finding Thor's hammer in a cave and turning into Thor. There already have been "what if?" stories exploring the scenario where his wife/girlfriend found the hammer instead. Storm has wielded Mjolnier on several occasions and turned into Thor. An alien has turned into Thor.

Fundamental differences compared to the mythological Thor are central to Marvel's Thor.

And so is this. This is also an interesting new twist to the character. It's not as if they're turning Thor into Spiderman or something. It's just that now, a woman is Thor.

Did it take anything away? To a lot of people, it most certainly did add something. There was nothing stupid about making him black.

I feel like we're getting to the heart of the matter here. You associate black with "otherness". Let me guess: you are white? And male? Do you associate female also with "otherness"?

Do you realize that there are people like you who are black and/or female? That to them, there's nothing "other" about black or female? And if culture continues insisting that black and female are "other", then they will be forced to see themselves as "other", or all of culture will become "other". Wouldn't it be better to accept blacks and women as people just like yourself?

Well, apparently it exposes these kind of preconceptions. That's something.

To you maybe, but to many others, it's a wonderful change. And even you may eventually see something interesting coming from this. I hope you will.

Yeah, so thunder, lightning and storms are not the sole domain of men. Also, Storm has been Thor at some point in the past.

Donald Blake.

Marvel has substituted characters since time immemorial. Captain America has been at least two different people. Thor has been several different people, including another woman and a space alien. Maybe you don't consider this interesting, but Marvel apparently does. You don't have to buy their comics if you don't want to.

True, but the time to complain about that is when Marvel first appropriated Thor and other mythological characters. What happens here is already well-established in Marvel canon.

No it doesn't. You just think it does, because you don't know what the core characteristic of Marvel Thor is. Thor has been different people before, including another woman and an alien.