This sounds ... weird.
Firstly, the last really good Lecter movie was 20 years ago. I actually don't mind either Hannibal or Red Dragon - though I still think Manhunter is the best Lecter movie and Brian Cox the best Hannibal. I haven't seen Hannibal Rising as the book was so bad.
Secondly, this seems an odd choice for Bryan Fuller, given his past record. Having said that, he's a hugely talented guy and his involvement is easily the most attractive thing about such a show.
Thirdly, if this is to remain in continuity with the movies (and with the DeLaurentis family being involved, it may well be), they'll need to set it in the late 1970s - early 1980s. They can't set it in the modern day and remain in continuity, as Hannibal was a child, orphaned during WWII. Of course, they could 'reboot' and update it, but Hannibal's cannibalism compulsion arose from seeing Russian soldiers eat his little sister at the end of the war. How would a modern-day Hannibal develop this fixation?
Fourthly, the more of Hannibal we've seen, the less interesting he's been. Brilliant in small doses in Manhunter and Silence, OTT and hammy in Hannibal, cliched and dull in Hannibal Rising. All the accusations which can be levelled at the Star Wars prequels for ruining the character of Darth Vader can be levelled at it but with much more force.
And finally, we basically know the story of Graham and Lecter. And we know it will end with Graham finding out that the brilliant psychiatrist on who's help he's been reliant is a killer. And that Hannibal will stab him but will be caught. Fair enough, you can tell a brilliant story where the audience knows the ending - I'm just not sure that this is the one to tell