I have been a Zelda fan for a very long time. Part of the reason I even stuck with gaming to this day is because of the excellence provided by the Zelda series. This is why it bothers me that fortunes seemed have turned south for the franchise (IMO).

When Ocarina was being developed, it was a new foray into 3D. With that in mind, young employees were dimensionally forced to implement new ideas into the series. NEW developments was the name of the game. After TLOZ: Wind Waker, Eiji Aonuma wanted to work on a different series, yet Miyamoto convinced him to stay. As a result, Zelda became increasingly more puzzle focused after every entry. In comparison to OOT's open world, Twilight Princess' was probably larger, yet more hollow...if that makes sense. There was more space but less to do within it.

I was reading the "Development" section for both OOT and SS on the respective Wikipedia pages and I noticed something:

• For OOT, Aonuma developed the dungeons, but only has one sentenced dedicated to his efforts. 
• Miyamoto was the producer in addition to being a director with 3 others including Aonuma.
• For SS, there was a back and forth struggle throughout the entire process of the game's development, evidenced by Aonuma refusing to work on Wii Motion Plus support for months, until Miyamoto finalized making it the Standard method of function.
• Now,  Aonuma is the producer and there is only one director, Hidemaro Fujibayashi, who has not directed a non-handheld Zelda before.

To make it short, the team working behind Zelda needs a break. Without team vacations inside Nintendo, we never would've received the Metroid Prime series. Once that break ended, we saw what happened with the franchise later (Other M only reached half the sales of MP3: Corruption). Fujibayashi debuting in a console-director role may be a good thing originality-wise, or it could blur the focus of what Zelda should be like.

Burnout happens in every profession, so I think after Skyward Sword comes out, it is time to put the focus back on the 'experience' of Zelda as opposed to 'features' (Wolf Link, Trains, Boats, Extended Fetch Quests). With the graphical strength at the disposal of Wii-U, graphics can be saved for last on the list of new Zelda priorities.

I agree with in general though, I was xxcited for SS and still am but not as much before the actual reveal because it seemed like they were doind something new, but it turned out just to be Zelda with alitte Harry potter in it. A more " Other M " approach( what I mean is is rather u loved or hated Other M doesn't matter its the fact they atempted something new with Metroid and it worked) to Zelda would be great.

My personal choice for Zelda would be to leave the Master Sword out for 1 game and let Link be aquire multiple weapons throughout the game... I want feeling of Link actually getting stronger in game just not for story purpose's.. like the before Oot installments.

well i agree zelda needs a change, not sure i follow your logic exactly. the formula is getting stale to me, i just know what to expect too much. so here are my rules for a fresh zelda experience.

no boomerang
no hookshot
no bow and arrow
no bombs

a zelda game that can't rely on those old hats is a zelda game that will require new, fresh, great ideas.

To be fair alot of that isnt new, its actually all happened before:

- looting has alwyas been in zelda loot.. not that much but there has been lot( by looting im assuming u mean enemies drop thingss after you kill them)

- upgrading items - Majoras Mask let you upgrade your sword and so did link to the past

- all zeldas have bigger dungeons than the past zelda only natural

see what did was take past elements from zelda games a "maximize them"( make better use of them here)... now they may be waaaay better ultilized here but actual new feature. Im sure it will all be fantastic though.

funny how some people think that the entire game is what we saw in the trailers :P
what do we know what changes have been made to the game if the only thing we have are a bunch of trailers showing very little of it?

SaviorX knows that SS will not be that good as he has played the game already and he knows it plays the same way as the other Zelda games.

Most people are afraid of change, but if done well it's easily embraced. So that leaves the question as to what can/should be changed and will it work?

Seems they added alot of new things though we cant fully tell until we play right?

I'm not saying the OP is completely without merit - the discussion regarding the creative leadership of the franchise is doubtlessly interesting - but before any such speculation might take place, we must get to the basics of the matter. I will be blunt here; I've yet to come across a sound and cogent argumentation as to why the Zelda series (in particular) needs to change.

Therefore, my first question is thus; Why only this franchise? Why not Mario? (Note that I am not accusing Mario of being stagnant - quite the opposite, in fact!)

But suppose I accept the notion that Zelda is in need of change; just what, then, needs changing? Is it a reliance on traditional Zelda tropes, structures, or plots? None of these complaints are trivially motivated, as a brief overview of the series' recent history shows.

Only ignorant plebians accuse Zelda of reutilizing anything but the most basic archetypal elements for its plot, and so it is, too, with dissidents lamenting the continued existence of block puzzles. Is the traditional arch of two sets of dungeons and a final confrontation in itself flawed? No, not any more than the dramatic three act structure itself. Why not, indeed, as some misguided souls have done, attack the very foundations (setting, characters, motif) of the series? No. The lesson here is that not everything needs to change. Take away certain things and, even if you are not robbing the series of its essence, you remove its central components - and for what? Nothing, as far as I know.

See, the series is doing fine on the creative front. Truly, the franchise is far from stagnant, the two great 'side movements' of recent times, Four Sword and the DS Zeldas, both ushered in new design paradigms for the series. Four Swords disposed with the traditional Zelda adventure world/structure and placed focus on arcade-style multiplayer action, and the DS Zeldas introduced a 2D/3D hybrid design placing focus on new interfaces, novel uses of items, and a central dungeon. Both movements, I might add, changed the 'experience' of their respective games in significant ways, and both directly involved Hidemaro Fujibayashi.

I cannot comment in-depth on the creative ails of the franchise directors/producers. I admire Aonuma, and think of him as a man with a sense of how to communicate drama through design, and on a conceptual plane, I've yet to find any flaw with his direction. If he wishes to move on, he should, but I see no reason to forcibly replace him. Still, both he and Miyamoto are difficult to separate from what "Zelda" is - simply because of the limited number of games which didn't involve their creative input.

What I can say is that I am very excited about the prospect of Fujibayashi directing a new Zelda. As I mentioned, the man has been an inovative force during recent years. I would personally trust no one else to perform better. He has a way of integrating new and exciting game mechanics with the game's mythos that I particularly enjoy, and his talent as a world-builder and writer are impressive (and markedly different from Koizumi's, though I suppose everyone is). I admit this is all coming from am a huge fan of The Minish Cap and Phantom Hourglass, but when Skyward Sword appears to incorporate some of the best aspects of those respective games along with new ideas, I think I have the right to be exited.

As for Zelda Wii U, the possibilities with that one are truly astounding, but it is too early to comment on specific hopes or fears, in my mind.

No one knows a lot about the game. All the footage we have seen seems to show different stuff from the same places.

But i kinda agree, it would be cool to see some changes to Zelda. My favourite Zelda is actually the first one, which was more about exploring a rich world and getting to the action than the latest Zelda`s have been. Too many side quests kind of distract people from what Zelda actually is.
It would also be cool to use, in a effective way, some weapons or items no matter what the dungeon or foe is.

I think the magic of Zelda has grown stale for me.....I mean how many times must link save Hyrule from Ganon?

I like Ganon as a boss but its time to get a new story with a new boss!!