A lot of has been made of Tom Hiddleston's admission that he's interested in playing James Bond.

Unconfirmed reports of late suggest that Hiddleston is close to signing off as the next iteration of the classic character, finally the Daniel Craig era to a close. While many would argue in favour of Idris Elba or even our own Aidan Turner, it looks like Tom Hiddleston is the favourite to don the tuxedo for king and country.

On paper, he has all the requisite talents and skills to play Bond. He has an English accent that borders on parody. He's athletic, he's charismatic, he's able to give real depth to a performance, he's even studied at Eton and RADA and has international recognition for his part in the Marvel Universe. On paper, he's the best fit for the role. Yet, despite all these attributes and even his own willingness to take on the role, there's plenty of reasons as to why he shouldn't go anywhere near James Bond. 

Let's go back to 2003, when Pierce Brosnan's tenure was coming to an end. Many names were circulating as to who would be the next Bond. One such name that was doing the rounds was Gerard Butler, who was only mentioned in passing with the role when he cracked a joke about Anne Widdecombe being his Bond girl. Naturally enough, the press ran with the story and Butler was forced to acknowledge that it was all a joke. More pointedly, however, was when Butler admitted that taking on Bond was taking on a career albatross.

Had he signed on for the role, he'd be forever associated with Bond and it would plague the rest of his career. The same is true as Daniel Craig, whose intermittent efforts outside of Bond have all been met with lacklustre reviews and disappointing performance at the box-office. Cowboys & Aliens, The Invasion, even the US remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo had an average return and stymied efforts for a sequel.

Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, all the way up to Pierce Brosnan - all of them have had to work exceptionally hard to shake the tuxedo off their shoulders and be counted for their own work. Daniel Craig is now facing into that reality when he finally leaves Bond for good. Tom Hiddleston, if he signs on, will have to do the same.

There's a larger point that Bond has essentially run his course with audiences. What else really can be done with the character that hasn't been done already? There's been a Cold War Bond, a Drug War Bond, a post-Soviet Union Bond, a post-9/11 Bond and there's even been a Edward Snowden Bond. While it may be true that the character is malleable and can adapt and change with the coming years, the stress lines are beginning to show. You only need to look at Spectre - and, indeed, Craig's own comments on the characters - to see that Bond's inherent characteristics - his casual sexism, his near-sociopathic personality, his rampant nationalism - simply do not gel with the modern world. To change these characteristics of Bond and make him progressive and in line with modern tastes is to change him entirely.

You might argue that Tom Hiddleston has enough goodwill stored up from his time as Loki to do this. Not only that, he's got a small army of fans that will follow his every word and career decision. The truth is, however, is that he's better than Bond. So's Idris Elba. So's Aidan Turner. They're all better than the role. While it may be one of the longest-running franchises in studio history, Bond has run out of steam. Short of realigning the character so completely as to create something different entirely, there's nothing Tom Hiddleston can bring to the table that will make him seem relevant.

Half of Craig's schtick was that he was this over-the-hill, wounded individual who had more miles on the clock than others. Hiddleston doesn't have that in his arsenal; he's too boyish and too well-meaning to be taken seriously for it. That's not a knock against him, either. It's difficult to have that characteristic and have it as naturally as he does. When you drill right down, Bond is a bad person who just happens to be on the side of the audience. While Hiddleston may have played villains in the past, and quite successfully, there was very little in his performance to suggest that he had that preserve of callousness or disregard for human life.

It's easy to see why Hiddleston would sign on for Bond, of course. His career has been flagging somewhat lately, what with Thor: The Dark World being arguably the least successful entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and his Hank Williams biopic, I Saw The Light, receiving resoundingly negative reviews. High-Rise was met with mixed reviews overall, despite a strong performance by Hiddleston. Outside of the BBC adaptation of John Le Carre's The Night Manager, Hiddleston hasn't had a win in quite some time.

If offered the chance to potentially repeat that success for the next eight to ten years, wouldn't anyone want to jump at it?