Over the past two years, the Academy Awards producers have adopted a trend of modifying the awards broadcast to pander to the whims of an impatient, casual audience. The changes that were included in last night’s 83rd Academy Awards followed this trend. One of the two changes to the ceremony was the exclusion of film montages. In the past, these montages served as a way to honor and remember important films and people that made the industry what it is today.

Last year’s horror montage at the 82nd Academy Awards included a hilarious riff on “Paranormal Activity” by hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin and paid tribute to some of the most respected horror films, including “Jaws,” “Nosferatu,” “The Exorcist,” “Psycho,” “The Shining” and “Silence of the Lambs.” The montage also honored popular horror films including “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “Beetlejuice” and “Scream.”

It was apparent just in those short clips that many of the faces that sat in Kodak theater on that night owed a great debt to the horror films that began or built their careers.

No such montage was seen at last night’s Academy Awards. There was no tribute to great genre films (82nd Academy Awards), no remembrance of the year’s memorable movie moments that may not have made red carpet nominations (81st Academy Awards), no salute to political commentary in film (78th Academy Awards).

Last night’s awards ceremony was stripped of these nostalgic moments because they have contributed to past broadcasts’ “unwieldy running time,” as a Chicago Tribune article stated.

The second change made to cut down on unwieldy running time was to eliminate the tradition, installed just two years ago, of having five presenters introduce the Best Actor and Best Actress candidates, a rare moment in which audiences got to see a more candid version of the stars.

Interestingly enough, while the producers gutted the broadcast itself, they added another hour to the red carpet pre-game so everyone can enjoy the needlessly expensive outfits the attendees wore. Last night, while audiences didn’t have a chance to see a montage about the greatest film scores, they got to enjoy Mila Kunis’ dress.

In an effort to shorten the Academy Awards broadcast, the producers have chosen to discard two traditions that honor the history of film. I’d like to simply be angry at the producers for slighting what I’ve come to love about the Academy Awards, but the thing is, it’s not their fault. The producers decided to change the broadcast this year amid repeated cries of the ceremony being too long-winded.

The past three Academy Awards (not including last night’s 83rd) had running times of three hours 37 minutes, three hours 30 minutes and three hours 21 minutes. In comparison, Superbowl XLV lasted four hours five minutes. Perhaps I’m just not connected well enough with the football community, but I’ve never heard anyone dare to suggest the almighty Super Bowl cut its half time show or maybe only play three quarters in an effort to achieve a “more manageable running time.”

And that makes sense. Why would football fans want the Super Bowl shortened? Fans watch the game because they love football. All this negativity toward the running time of the Academy Awards begs the question: What are people watching for?

For those who just want to see the winners for water cooler talk, there’s easier ways than watching the broadcast. Either go online the day after or watch “Entertainment Tonight” coverage the next day, which is always more than happy to compress the Academy Awards and the careers of those involved to bite-size, easily digestible nuggets.

It’s unsettling the Academy Awards producers are pandering to what seems like an audience that doesn’t really care much about the film industry. There are plenty of other awards shows for that audience to watch, but the Academy Awards are supposed to be about prestige. In assuaging this audience over the past two years, the producers have added five additional nominees to the Best Picture award, cut film montages and abandoned using five presenters. I wonder, what will the next two years bring or, more aptly, take away from the Academy Awards?