> I assumed they did that to save the time it takes for all the contestants to realize they won and make their way to the stage. They were probably desperate not to run over time. I thought it looked silly, but it's better than having the show drag till 2 AM.

That was the exactly the reason they did it -- Gil Cates explicitly told this to the press. That doesn't make it any less stupid. Yes, this was one of the shortest Oscar broadcasts in recent history, but how much of that was due to the lack of montages and Best Picture presentations, and how much was due to people in about 15 categories not walking up on the stage? Ten seconds per category -- OH LOOK, A VALUABLE NOT QUITE THREE MINUTES SAVED!!! The expense, of course, being the technical people being treated as third class citizens when they work just as hard and have as much to do with the outcome of a film as the stars do. To hell with the Academy if I ever won an Oscar, and I never got to actually step up to the stage to accept it.

I'm with Stephen. Those of us that care at all already understand that it's long. So let it be long. I don't know why the Academy cares anyway -- a longer show means more commercial time. In any case, nothing excuses the show being so disrespectful about what it's actually supposed to BE about.