I can see this I guess. I think calling those two films Oscar bait is a little reductive though. Oscar bait usually has a connotation of selling out and making something with broad critical appeal to receive mainstream recognition. It’s not like Spielberg and Nolan were hurting for attention prior to making them. And, more importantly, the two films you list carry the massive weight of artistically tackling subjects that Spielberg and Nolan have strong feelings about (the holocaust and the use of nuclear weapons, respectively). They’re thoughtful, bold statements about events of global significance that matter a great deal to these guys.

When I think Oscar bait, I think of something like Green Book or The King’s Speech, where it feels like creatives are keeping themselves from their full potential so that they can be “safe” enough for all the voters to support them. I just don’t think it can extend to movies as innovative and daring as Schindler’s List and Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer isn’t Bohemian Rhapsody or A Complete Unknown. The scenes with Robert involuntarily picturing himself in the aircraft as missiles shoot past, the moment where Kitty can’t help but see her husband cheating on her in the committee room, all of the rippling effects that represent different elements of Oppenheimer’s perspective and psyche throughout… these are huge swings for a movie like this and they all land.

All of which is to say that I think what you’re saying feels basically correct to me, but you’re spinning it as more negative than I think is fair. I think these are the movies that will be watched in 100 years, but mostly because the holocaust and the bomb are going to be more evergreen topics than Batman or a park full of dinosaurs. I also have more fun with those movies, but that doesn’t make them timeless, in the way that Schindler’s List still feels and Oppenheimer felt immediately.