This idea of the groom helping to pay for it comes from cultural evolution, and I'm glad for that.
The idea of the bride's family footing the whole bill smacks of the cultural value of bridewealth, which I consider to be based on a very old idea of inequality. I don't see why two people who have decent incomes and savings can't pay for their own wedding, and maybe accept a little help from both their parents, if they want. I'd rather use money from our parents for savings/house downpayment, etc, than for a rather gratuitous, fleeting day of dressing up, being emotional, and getting drunk.
That said, ktspktsp and I had hordes of friends between us, but we wanted to get it done for a price less than the downpayment of a house (e.g. as far under $10,000 as possible), and we had 5 weeks to plan it. We got it done. 30 guests, outdoors, beautiful pics, felt like a big wedding but cost about 1/3-1/4 as much as the average American wedding these days. I was fine with that. No matter what anyone tells you, you are in total control of your guest list, and there are no "rules" for who you have to invite, or not invite. If you have a budget, then stick to your budget, and make the guest list match that. Not the other way around.
To be honest, I really would have felt *wrong* having anything more fancy/expensive than that... to surrender so completely to the Wedding Industrial Complex that is implanted in girls since they get their first Barbie and Ken set (keep in mind, mine ended up in the trash heap after a few days, usually missing limbs).
It is really a disservice that our society encourages so much consumption as a "proper" way of starting a marriage, in my cynical view.
And yes, I teared up at my wedding, though not full-on crying. That was my dad's and his mom's job.