Our department hosted a distinguished guest speaker last week. He is quite renowned in my field, and perhaps has some name recognition with the general public too. Apparently, we thought he would be a popular enough draw that the talk was advertised to the entire university (and, I believe, to local companies), and was held in the on-campus theatre rather than in a large classroom. Sure enough we filled the theatre (which seats around 750), and turned a few dozen away at the door.
The first person to take the podium was the president of the university, who made some short-but-sweet comments about us and the speaker. Great. Then, my department chair got up to introduce the speaker. The introduction started out alright, but gradually devolved into a recitation of his CV, including a ritualistic enumeration of every single award, fellowship, and honourary degree, which in the case of this speaker is a real endurance trial. Combined with the president's address, the preamble to the actual talk probably went on for more than ten minutes. The speaker ended up skipping some material at the end, and didn't have time to take any questions. That clearly was partly his fault -- he simply had too much to talk about. But shorter introductions might have left more time at the end.
Why try to list every one of a distinguished guest's accomplishments? We already know they're distinguished, and it's probably a bit embarrassing for them. The list itself isn't memorable or entertaining. I'm sure that "Our speaker's accomplishments our too numerous to list, but highlights include..." would go over fine. Better yet, you could paraphrase a line from Ocean's 11: "He's got a list of accomplishments as long as my... well, it's long." Actually, one of the better introductions given in my department was by a professor who was shocked to first meet the speaker -- he had assumed that because the speaker was so distinguished, he must have been dead. "I'm surprised he's not dead" -- high praise indeed.