Now pay attention: let's get Bond right

So let's get this straight: will there be a new James Bond the next time 007 appears on the big screen? Though Daniel Craig hasn't exactly said he won't appear for a fifth time - and the BBC recently reported a source saying that "no decision is likely be made for a while" - the increasing weariness with which he's appeared to talk about a character he revitalised would suggest that, at 48, he will be hanging up the shoulder holster for his Walther PPK. According to another anonymous source, "Daniel is done - pure and simple", and despite being offered oodles of money for another two Bond films, Spectre may prove to be his last.

Which, let's be honest, may be for the best. Not that there was anything wrong with Craig or indeed Spectre itself - a fine addition to the official Bond canon - but as he heads towards his 49th year (as I am - being just four months older), I can see why all that running across rooftops, getting shot at on ski slopes and generally getting beaten about will be losing its lustre. I know I struggle with the Paris Métro first thing in the morning.

So now we must endure the time-honoured tradition of the media guessing game. Without much guessing going on. The press has convinced itself that the next Bond will be Tom Hiddlestone, mostly on the back of his performance in The Night Manager. As good as that was - and he was terrific - Hiddlestone is not Bond for me. Too fey, too posh. Too nice, even.

Now, I know that when Daniel Craig was announced as Pierce Brosnan's replacement the reaction was "too blond, too short, too Scouse" (well, my reaction), and he went on to be arguably the best 007 since Sean Connery. So a tall, lanky, Eton-educated actor like Hiddlestone might surprise us still. But, really.

Connery set the mould; Lazenby replicated it, before Connery briefly returned; Moore turned the character into a camp 70s playboy; Dalton added some celtic grit to the character, again in the Connery manner; and then Brosnan came along, and the franchise gradually descended into self parody with the ridiculous Die Another Day. No surprise, then, that Hiddlestone's portrayal of John le Carré's unlikely spy Jonathan Pine in the BBC's sumptuous adaptation of The Night Manager auto-suggested the idea that he could be a Bond.

There are, though, better candidates. Henry Cavill is the obvious one, being physically closest to the Connery frame, while Tom Hardy would be another to fit the delta of muscularity and sophistication. Damian Lewis crops up, too, in the lists, and that wouldn't be a bad shout, either. And why not Idris Elba, despite the obvious? But then I read that Nicholas Hoult and Jamie Bell are potentials, even though the latter is still, for many of us, Billy Elliott.

Pictures: Twitter/Gillian Anderson

And while we're on the subject of outside bets, Gillian Anderson and Game Of Thrones' Emilia Clarke have thrown their hats into the ring, sort of. Here is, though, where a line must be drawn. And I'm not being sexist in saying so.

James Bond is James Bond. Not Jane Bond or Jamelia Bond. James. Ian Fleming's literary vision was of a tall, dark haired man, resembling Hoagy Carmichael, a fact Bond's ill-faited lover Vesper Lynd remarks upon in Casino Royale - "something cold and ruthless". That description, along with Bond's facial structure and hair colour, cropped up throughout the Fleming books and, of course, influenced the choice of Connery when Cubby Broccoli came calling to make Dr. No into a film.

I've got nothing against Anderson - quite the opposite as it goes - but why would it not be possible for the Bond people, MGM studios and Eon Productions, to create a franchise for her, or any other actress? Are we so insistent on political correctness when it comes to fictional characters that the search for a new James Bond must be turned into an equal opportunities debate? It has nothing to do with the physicality of the part, either. It's really about gender: Bond is male. Has there ever been a debate about a male actor taking over the role of Lara Croft?

I know that I have just come across as the "sexist, misogynist, dinosaur" that M herself accused the Brosnan Bond of being in their opening encounter in Goldeneye, but is it so wrong to keep fictional characters as they were intended, as they were invisioned? And is it so hard to come up with new characters that give actors the opportunity to create a new franchise? There's such a paucity of good, strong characters for female actors as it is, so the idea of repurposing an existing male role seems counter-productive.

Picture: Heineken

Whomever gets the gig, however, will have a lot to live up to. The four Daniel Craig Bond films over the last 11 years have brought the franchise up to date in so many ways, not least of which a welcome dourness to counter some of the needless frivolity that the Brosnan Bond indulged. The two directed by Sam Mendes were both terrific action films and stunning cinematic experiences (Roger Deakins' photography in the Shanghai scenes of Skyfall are amongst my favourite in any movie).

These harder, darker and more contemporary Bond films may not be everyone's Vesper Martini, of course, but the Craig films - even the much-criticised Quantum Of Solace - have, though, demonstrated that Bond could be different and, yet, at the same time, make the character stronger. I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised if, indeed, the job does go to Hiddlestone (or Anderson, for that matter). I just need a lot more convincing of its wisdom.