You're living in a dream world, Neo. The development of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy was secured because the novel trilogy has remained a worldwide phenomenon for sixty years and the reasons for its popularity was generally consistent amongst readers. Studios only invest in films if they are sure that they are going to sell, and in the case of the Lord of the Rings (and with another phenomenon, Harry Potter), studios knew that the films would sell.

All other comic-book and video game adaptations are made as one film, because they only possess a niche fanbase at most. Only when the film has sold well to the mainstream audience do the investors gauge whether it is a franchise worth expanding. The Legend of Zelda has a niche fanbase; nowhere near the popularity of Lord of the Rings, nor the level of interest in a motion picture. The fanbase is equally conflicted amongst itself because fans enjoy the games for entirely different reasons. The Zelda franchise is in a state of turmoil because its most recent games just aren't appealing to the numbers that used to buy the older games.

Twilight Princess in particular failed to sell high numbers in Japan, attributed to the mature nature of the title that appealed to Americans. With a similar war situation and serious emotional complex between the characters, Nintendo will be looking at your film with the past experience of the title. Do Nintendo want to invest in a trilogy that won't appeal to their home audience? They could just as easily make a cheap anime like Pokemon and rake in cash, although they have higher standards with Zelda.

What you're asking is overambitious to the extreme where I might as well just say you're going to fail and leave this topic now. But I've never had a serious discussion about the nature of a Zelda film, so I'll keep going.