I've seen the first few episodes, but couldn't engage with the network procedural format. I've been told that it evolves away from that, but it's difficult for me to get into a show that I didn't watch from day one or that has already come and gone.
I will say that a comment Fuller made at a convention before I ever saw the show put a bad taste in my mouth. He reassured the audience that they weren't going to show rape on the show and the audience erupted in cheers. I found his statement of intent and the reaction to it to be bizarre and bordering on offensive given my ambivalence about romanticizing serial killers. I get what you guys are saying about his approach and that all sounds interesting, but it's a little difficult for me to reconcile my knowledge of the reality of what those people are like with what Fuller wanted to sell to his audience. It suggested to me that Fuller wanted his (specifically female) audience to "comfortably" engage with this romantic, poetic notion of what a serial killer is and I wasn't feeling it.*
When I read the details about what people like Ted Bundy did (which I don't do anymore because it's too upsetting), the desire to see them recontextualized into something other than what they are is a difficult leap to make.
Now, I will not claim total consistency on this and I fully support an artist's decision to do as he / she will, unrestrained by whatever the culture says to do or not do, but I have to be in the proper headspace for it. It just so happens that the serial killer, as a subject of genre, is something that I still have misgivings about.
I enjoyed Hannibal on an artistic level; but it's very much a fable or allegory, not a procedural based in reality. The various Hannibal filmmakers, post-Manhunter, were quick to abandon any of the psychopathology behind cannibalism. These killers have extremely low opinions of themselves, lower than dog crap, and their actions are a way of proving that fact to themselves. Literally, the scum of the earth. Far removed from the Turbo-charged Jag driving, fine-wine consuming academic we saw in the later works.
Anyhow, an interview with Dante Spinotti:
Mann is so known for his sense of control. Did you feel a change in workflow when moving from film to digital?
I know Michael very well. We are friends and have been friends for a long, long time. Michael is, for sure, the kind of director who, if you agree with him and understand what he has in mind to do, you can work with him. If you are someone who discusses or does disagree, you better not do that. You don’t need to step into a hard time. So if you agree and understand, it’s all fine — and you like it. If you agree with something, you like it. I always found, even when I did my first movie with Michael… the way I describe it is that, for me, coming from Italy and some good television, he was like finding a way of making movies that maybe I dreamed of, in my mind, but that I actually never worked on. It’s kind of interesting. He was great, and I have always highly admired him; I learned a lot from Michael Mann. It was always an operation that needed quite a bit of concentration to make it happen.