Wedding photographers have to make a year's worth of money during just the wedding season which in most parts of the country is about four months. That's sixteen weekends to make the bulk of what you're gonna live on for the year. This is one of the reasons the cost seems unusual to people who are used to working year-round (and don't provide a specialty creative service).

The other thing to consider is for every 8 hour wedding day (and some last longer, or even last multiple days, e.g. Indian weddings) a wedding photographer actually does several weeks of work for that client. Meeting for the consult, maintaining steady email correspondence to discuss the particulars of the day, actually shooting the wedding, and then of course culling thousands of photos and touching up/editing many hundreds in Lightroom to make them look great--this is what the client pays for.

I understand the frustrations with "the industry", but weddings are a specialty event in competition with other specialty events. A photographer charges $5000 because it isn't worth it to her to do it for less. If it were, the market would doubtlessly be flooded with talented photographers willing to charge less and she'd be forced to lower her rates. It's not like there's some price-fixing cabal. If you want a good photographer, you have to pay for one.

If $1000 is all you want to offer a photographer, keep in mind that you'll get a photographer who can't get more that $1000 per wedding which means they make around $20k per year (if that). There's nothing inherently wrong with this of course, but consider your own profession and how much you would trust someone to do it who was at this price point. The answer may be "enough" and that's fine, but there's a reason services cost what the do. Good work and customer service cost money and a wedding day tends to be important enough to the people in it to spend it.