I genuinely see the similarities. They've got slightly different physiques (Kim is arguably curvier, and a little shorter than Taylor), but they have a similar vibe, and facially I see it.
I don't know how good an actor Swift is (she's only done a handful of films, and one of them was Cats! Eek!), but I could see her cast as Vicki Vale, were Batman 89 to be made today.
I was thinking that Taylor Swift is pretty much, a taller, lankier version of Kim Basigner. Taylor Swift is roughly, almost the same age now as Kim Basinger was when she did Batman. Taylor was born about six and half months after Batman was first released into theaters (December 13, 1989). So that would make her 33 years old now. Kim Basinger was about 35-36 years old (her date of birth is December 8, 1953) when Batman was filmed and released.
Maybe because we're all living longer (although I believe that increased life expectancy is now starting to plateau), I feel that younger generations, including the one Swift belongs to, seem comparatively less mature than earlier ones. In other words, a 35-year-old Millennial seems younger than a 35-year-old early Boomer. When Kim Basinger made Batman 89 she was arguably at the peak of her beauty, and yet she was almost a surprising choice for the female lead because age-wise, she was no longer around the ingenue mark (i.e. a twenty-something) which is often the age for female love interests in blockbuster movies. However, these days, 35 no longer seems particularly old (or maybe I'm just biased because I'm older).
Anyway, maybe someone should cast Swift as Basinger's daughter in a movie.
When Kim Basinger made Batman 89 she was arguably at the peak of her beauty, and yet she was almost a surprising choice for the female lead because age-wise, she was no longer around the ingenue mark (i.e. a twenty-something) which is often the age for female love interests in blockbuster movies.
This is an interesting point that you made because I a while back, read on Quora a comment that said that Kim Basinger was for a time, the main go to actress when filmmakers wanted a woman who could play a soft variation of the femme fatale.
What that basically meant was that Kim was likely the first actress who you would call when you needed somebody who was preferably blonde, was no longer an ingenue, but was also too sexy to play middle aged soccer moms. Generally speaking, her characters typically acted as a catalyst in another person’s journey. However, she still had enough lines to get second billing and her face on the poster.
reply share
By a 'soft variation of the femme fatale' I guess they mean a character who is seductive and could seem to be bad news, but is often revealed to be sympathetic or at least ambiguous, rather than an out-and-out evil character like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct.
In Nine and a Half Weeks and No Mercy, I think she was playing those types of 'soft femme fatale' roles (even to some extent My Stepmother Is An Alien and The Marrying Man, which are a comedy variations of such characters), however, she also played a few genuinely despicable characters now-and-again in films like The Natural and particularly Final Analysis.
Among "current" or more contemporary actresses, I'm almost immediately inclined to say that Margot Robbie is probably the closest that I would imagine of fitting the basic image or idea and concept of the "soft variation of the femme fatale".
I'll give you a warning beforehand, it's really bad, even if you're a fan of Basinger and Aykroyd, and have a soft-spot for late 80s nostalgia, as I do.