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.
