If you don't already have one, you *need* a copy of this book:
Bernard of Hollywood's Guide to Pin-Up Photography
It has dozens of 40's style pinups by one of the Grand Masters of the art, Bruno Bernard. More importantly with regard to your question, it has complete lighting diagrams for every shot and a brief commentary on its technical aspects.
Now, you say you are trying to match the sort of lighting used in studio *stills.* Bernard was mostly doing shots for actress and model *portfolios.* That is, of course, a different thing. Most importantly, shots of actresses and models almost always showed "the whole girl." Part of her might be shaded, or out of view, but whatever you could see of her was illuminated at least enough to make out. In your second image, the model's left side is in darkness, and in your third, part of her face is almost totally in shadow. They're very dramatic and perhaps conform more with your vision of studio film publicity pics taken as "stills." But they don't celebrate the "whole model" the way that I see "Hollywood Glamour" style photos doing.
Even with publicity stills, back then you didn't obscure large areas of a model as a general rule, especially if it was a "name" actress. Except for maybe a few film noir-style shots, the idea was to lay out the entire subject to demonstrate her appeal to the viewer.
That being said, I'll admit that it's all my opinion and I am certainly no expert on the Golden Age. It *is* a style that appeals to me, however, and I've seen more than a few such images. So I'm comfortable raising these issues. Your photographs are certainly not bad, they just don't strike me as the sort of thing you are trying to convey.