Corrected entry: In the scene where Gwen is grabbing the phone cable to not fall to her death, her father and boyfriend (Eddie) arrive. They see her, and show no sign of worry. Her father asks "What is she doing up there?", but doesn't react that her daughter is about to die. Eddie, who likes her very much, doesn't react either. What's wrong with these people?
Jon Sandys
17th Aug 2012
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Corrected entry: When Abba sing Waterloo in 1974, it was mandatory to sing in your own language, so they should be singing it in Swedish, not English, like it was in the movie. (00:01:30)
Correction: The performance shown in the film is the real one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FsVeMz1F5c. The rule mandating use of national language was only implemented in 1977, and scrapped in 1998.
3rd Jul 2020
Brooklyn Nine-Nine (2013)
Corrected entry: Holt says to Diaz, "having dinner with Kevin and me." Which is out of character for him as he's very particular about his words. The phrase should end with "Kevin and I." (00:02:33)
Correction: No, "me" is correct. The simple way to tell is to remove the other person (and the "and") from the sentence. As in "having dinner with me" would be correct, whereas "having dinner with I" would be wrong.
13th Apr 2020
Death in Paradise (2011)
Corrected entry: In the close captions (Prime Video) Goodman on the boat in the dark says "So much that Nancyand I are going to do together", missing a space. (00:21:50)
Correction: While subtitles on an official DVD normally count as a mistake, on streaming services I'd be more tolerant, because that's more Amazon's responsibility, and they're often corrected once alerted to the problem.
Will remember that in the future! Thanks. I understand the part about the fact that it's easy for them to fix and therefore the mistake could be corrected very easily (although I could take a screenshot, which is hardly worth the hassle for very minor mistakes of this nature) and is in fact corrected if reported (that's a bit like bugs submissions for games tho?), not sure about the responsibilities, since DVD subtitles too are normally done by external companies as well.
True, I guess my attitude has generally been that by the time it's crystallised onto a DVD it's been signed off by the distributor/filmmakers, and the whole thing is sort of a package, whereas if Amazon/Netflix get the subtitles wrong or make a strange edit, etc. that's more a one-off, plus can be fixed after the fact. Grey area though!
6th Jun 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
Trivia: Stay until all credits roll. There is a clip with Penelope Cruz you don't want to miss. (02:15:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's already common knowledge that ALL the Pirate's movies have a bonus scene after the credits. This doesn't count as trivia.
And how do things become "common" knowledge? By being listed somewhere such that people who don't know things can discover them. By your reasoning no trivia should ever be listed anywhere, because everyone should know it all already.
27th Jan 2020
Eurotrip (2004)
Corrected entry: How did they fly from Berlin to Rome with passports?
Correction: France and Germany are both in the Schengen Agreement, meaning once you enter one of them with a passport, you can then travel anywhere within other Schengen countries without further passport checks.
10th Jan 2020
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Other mistake: When Kylo/Ben leaves the Endor system to go to Exogol, he takes an old Imperial TIE Fighter he supposedly found in the Death Star remains. However, it is established in the previous films that that TIE fighters are short range fighters that are not equipped with a hyperdrive.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A TIE fighter would never survive the death star crash. Kylo/Ben probably called for a TIE and took that.
But it's an old Imperial TIE, not a new First Order one.
Good point.
5th Jan 2020
A Christmas Story (1983)
Corrected entry: When Ralphie is looking at the store window display, there is Snow White and a dwarf depicted behind the toys. The scene is supposed to be set in 1939/1940 but Snow White didn't come out in theatres from Disney until 1944.
Correction: Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was released in 1937 to great acclaim, and was awarded an honorary Oscar in 1939. It was re-released in 1944 and many times after that.
18th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Stupidity: The commando mission to save Chewbacca starts gunning down a few Stormtroopers in the hangar. The heroes then go on leaving the troopers lying down on the floor in front of the ship, in plain view. They don't hide them nor ask the droids (who have enough strength and tools to pull them in) to, in fact they tell them to stay put. No wonder they are found out later (after a ridiculously long amount of time).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hiding the bodies would have been a waste of time, anyone who came to the hangar would immediately notice that the guards stationed there were missing and there was now a strange ship parked there.
The droids have all the time in the world, and people just passing by are "more immediately" bound to notice corpses in the middle of a hangar rather than possibly maybe question the fact that you don't see guards in that part of the hangar or investigate the ship - which could approach without anyone taking exception by appearance alone. At least remove the bodies directly in front of the damn ship!
Why would they be more likely to notice dead guards than no guards?
Anyone passing by might well thing the patrols were just out of sync, or a shift change. Sure they might investigate further, but they might not bother. Whereas a couple of dead bodies? Immediate red alert. Worth taking 30 seconds to hide them, surely.
Perhaps, but then it's made irrelevant 1 minute later as Finn and Poe run down a hallway blasting about a dozen stormtroopers.
For that matter, 1 SECOND later they kill stormtroopers in the far part of the hangar. They are killing people all over the ship during their mission and it's not like they hide every single one of them, but they leave two bodies *exactly* in front of their ship (and telling the droids to stay put). You can even see later that there is a stormtrooper with his weapon pointed exactly where those two corpses are, with the 'smart' commanding officer asking "whose ship is this?" at the sight of that. Maybe I am spoiled by a trope here, but it's the first time that I see someone in an action movie leaving corpses right in front of their only escape route/vehicle, that's so counterintuitive. (Did they even have an escape plan, actually? I don't like hypotheticals, but gee, if only she did the Jedi mind trick thing to those 2 guards who came over to inspect the ship instead of doing it later. But I digress).
17th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Plot hole: Luke deliberately says he does not want to be found and came to Ach-To to die in The Last Jedi, but The Force Awakens is all about finding a map to Luke Skywalker. Why would Luke leave a map when he never wanted to be found?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a question, not a plot hole. Luke went to find the first Jedi temple. The location of the temple is what they were ultimately needing to try and locate Luke. The map that has the temple was already created before Luke went to the temple, he did not create a map where to find him and then secretly hide it away.
It is a plot hole statement in the form of a question. It ultimately is a continuity error between Episodes 7 and 8. TFA never mentioned it as a map to a Jedi temple Luke might be at. The audience is told in that movie that it is a map to Luke Skywalker. It is believed by the end of TFA that Luke wants to be found if they needed him. It is only after Rian Johnson goes against what JJ Abrams planned for Luke that this error becomes prominent. If this is simply a map to the first Jedi Temple, then the Resistance is betting a lot on the chance Luke went there and still there after all these years.
In The Force Awakens, Kylo Ren refers to the map as a navigational chart recovered from the archives of the Empire. According to the spin-off books, the Empire were using it to find the first Jedi Temple and destroy it. So the map was not in fact left by Luke. Since Luke is believed to have gone looking for the first Jedi Temple, my guess is that whoever discovered the map realised where it led to, and knew that was where Luke was believed to have gone, and thus referred to it as a map to Luke.
What other choice do they have? The know where he wanted to go. If the do not find him there then the have someplace to look abound for clues as to where he went to afterwards. Also it is not like if he is not there they are stuck and cannot return to the resistance fleet.
A map to the first Jedi Temple is a perfectly fine explanation for what the map actually is and if the Resistance thought Luke was there, it was worth the risk to go there and look for him. However, the very identity of the map seems to change between movies and it is introduce in TFA as a map to Luke, not to a Jedi Temple. So in TFA it is a map to Luke and in TLJ it is now a map to a Jedi Temple Luke might be at. That is the problem, a discontinuity of the map's identity between the two films in the trilogy. This stems from the two directors' view of Luke in this trilogy also being completely different.
They think it's a map to Luke, or believe it, or someone else thought it was. It's not a discontinuity, just a semantic difference or miscommunication.
This movie or TFA should have explained this miscommunication as it comes across as a miscommunication to the audience and not to the Resistance. There is nothing in either film to show it is a map to a Jedi Temple Luke might be at. A miscommunication to the audience is poor writing, but since this occurs between two movies, it is a continuity mistake. This mistake is obviously due to the character of Luke changing when it moved on from JJ to Rian. This change makes the plot of TFA more confusing, but ultimately a continuity mistake is a much more just denotation for this than plot hole.
Since the Jedi Temple and Luke are in the same place the map is both a map to Luke and to the Jedi Temple. Someone looking for Luke will see it as a map to Luke, someone that is force sensitive may see it a a map to the temple.
This statement does not answer anything. The map was either designed to be a map to where Luke said he was or as map to a Jedi Temple where Luke may be. Not both. Both places can be the same, but the identity of what the map is remains as one or the other. Otherwise we are again back to a bad miscommunication in the Resistance and bad miscommunication to the audience that is just bad writing. Since it is stated in TFA that is is a map to Luke, the audience should believe it as such. It is never described as a map to a Jedi Temple Luke might be at. The continuity error and plot confusion comes from the fact that in TFA it is a map to Luke for when he was needed and in TLJ it is a map to a Jedi Temple that the Resistance hoped Luke would be at. Since TFA came first, it takes precedent and all of Luke's lines of not wanting to be found do not make sense.
While initially the audience is told it's a map to Luke, we find out later that the map leads to the first Jedi temple. This is nothing more than building suspense, which doesn't constitute a plot hole. While one could argue it was only after changes to the script or a director's choice that changed what the map was designed to be, the original mistake is still not valid because Luke never created a map to where he was going and then hide it as suggested.
4th Dec 2019
Shazam! (2019)
Trivia: Spoiler: At the very end of the movie, Superman makes an appearance at the school cafeteria. He is referenced many times throughout the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: How is this trivia? It's obvious in the film.
Some stuff like this is interesting to read about even if you've not seen the film yet. I didn't know that scene existed, for one.
2nd Aug 2019
True Lies (1994)
Corrected entry: After Bill Paxton pisses himself at the bridge, you see Arnold and Tom walking back towards the van. If you look, it's not Tom Arnold, but some other guy with the same build. The face is obviously different.
Correction: No it's not. That's definitely Tom Arnold. It begs the question as to why they would have a stand-in just for that one scene.
Re stand-ins, as various Friends mistakes demonstrate, stand-ins are often used when the star isn't really needed, due to the shot being from far away, or them being mostly offscreen, etc. Might be the star is done for the day and leaves set, then they suddenly want a pickup shot or a change of scheduling and they work with what they've got.
I agree it is definitely Tom Arnold, but there are many possible reasons for using a stand-in for just one scene, so it begs the questions why you think it begs the question.
But since Tom Arnold was available for the shot it begs the question of why you begged the question about begging the question. I'll get me coat.
I agree with LordSkyegon. There is no reason to use a stand-in in that scene.
16th Jul 2019
The Karate Kid (2010)
Corrected entry: No kid ever uses karate in this movie. Kung Fu is used, which is a different martial art.
Correction: This isn't a film mistake and would be more suited to a forum discussion to address the question "why isn't it called The Kung Fu Kid?" Since this is a remake, they decided to keep the original name. Plus, karate, which means "Chinese" "Hand", later changed to "Empty" "Hand", can be used to describe kung fu, and some people use the terms interchangeably. Questions or comments like "Why is it called Karate Kid III when Daniel's not a kid?" or "Why is it called Home Alone 2 when Kevin isn't at home?" are not considered mistakes and neither is this film's title.
When a movie title is inaccurate including getting a martial art wrong it is a movie mistake. An alligator even though it has similarities to a crocodile is not the same animal.
Kung Fu is not interchangeable with Karate if that were true most persons would be saying Bruce Lee created Karate.
And these are all good points to make in a forum discussion. Perhaps Jon can weigh in on if film names constitute a movie mistake (perhaps mis-titling films/shows can be listed in the common mistake section or trivia for the film). There are already "mistakes" that are not valid, like mistakes needing slow-motion to see, so I think it should be an invalid mistake.
Yeah, I'm with you. Sometimes a title can be a mistake, like Krakatoa, East of Java, which is actually west of Java. But there has to be some leeway, and especially if something's a remake or sequel the understanding of the title is what matters more than the literal meaning. I mean Reservoir Dogs or A Clockwork Orange or The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia. Sometimes you've got to give some leeway. But as ever it's a grey area and there's not always a one size fits all approach.
26th Jun 2019
Good Omens (2019)
Corrected entry: Crowley's car has a CD player: a Pioneer DEH-X1790UB, even in the 1991 sequence. It has front USB and the manual is dated 2014 - not fitting the time period.
Correction: As noted on another entry, no part of this episode takes place in 1991. Adam was born around 2008 and most of the series takes place in the modern day. If the USB port and manual are visible in any of the flashbacks, please specify where.
It's there too in the flashbacks, sometimes more, sometimes less visible; but if the story were not dated, as some claim, then no, in that case it wouldn't be a mistake. (I specifically recall a caption with a date in line with the original story, by the way..).
If you can provide the time/scene when that caption is displayed, please do.
10th Jul 2019
Good Omens (2019)
Corrected entry: Crowley boasts to the other demons about having disrupted the mobile telephone network (causing millions of people irritation and so serving the cause of hell). But in 1991, very few people would have been affected - only very few people had mobile phones for work. (In The Book he caused a traffic jam).
Correction: The series isn't set in 1991 - it's kept deliberately vague as to exactly when the setting is, but clearly modern enough for the mobile phone network to be an annoyance if disrupted.
Doesn't it say 1991 in the captions then, or anywhere else? But Bush senior is president when the ambassador's wife is giving birth. Briefly mentioned and shown during the video conference (which is another weird mistake).
The scene in which Crowley claims to have taken down the entire London-area mobile phone network is set 11 years before the events of the modern day sections of the show. The actor playing the president is simply credited as "George Bush" but does not specify which. It is more likely he is portraying George W Bush based on his appearance and the apparent time frame of the show (2008-2019).
Also, the voice is supposed to be George W's. His father had a very distinct and very different way of speaking.
11 years before 2002, which I think is given at some point in the first episode. So... 1991. Of course, this all doesn't fit very well; that's why it's a mistake.
I'm watching it now and it doesn't give a year at any point - just "eleven years ago" and then "the present day." The president is George W Bush given the distinct voice, plus the portable screen the Ambassador is using definitely isn't 1991 technology.
But Bush is in some places castlisted as GHW Bush, though. He's voiced by a GW Bush impersonator which perhaps throws people off the scent. (That last bit about the "1991 facetime" would have been yet another mistake - or rather, I'd suspect the mistake would be the contested caption containing a date).
The credits simply say "George Bush" - any other cast lists are third-party and can't be taken as accurate. So either the mistakes are the video call, and the wrong president, and the phone network, OR none of those are mistakes because there's no date given, and all of them line up perfectly with being set in 2008.
Actually a date can be inferred from episode 2, based on the burning of the witch + "350-odd"/about 360 years (difference on account of the flashback). So okay, it's the last days of Dubya then... Funny how many landlines they are still using then, though.
I don't think it's a mistake. While never explicitly stated, it is continuously implied that the series doesn't take place in the 1990s like the books, but in our present day England. As others pointed it out, if we subtract 11 years from 2019 to get Adam's birth year, that's 2008, when George W. Bush was still in office, videoconferencing was already a thing and Crowley could have taken the phone lines down.
8th Jul 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Stupidity: Beck wants to kill Peter's friends because they know his secret. Instead of using Edith to attack them directly with a drone strike, or using his illusion technology to lead them into the path of a train like he did with Spider-Man, he instead has a henchman drive them onto a bridge and leave them in the path of his next Elemental attack. Because absolutely nothing is forcing them to stay on the bridge, they all casually walk off the bus and out of immediate danger. It is unfathomable that a man as intelligent and resourceful as Beck would take such an idiotic approach, especially considering all he had at his disposal and how desperate he was.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He wanted it to seem like they were killed in the Elemental attack because it was cleaner. If they were killed by a drone it would be much more suspicious than being killed in the disaster. Once the plan goes wrong, he does simply send an Edith drone after them. If it wasn't for Spider-Man's timing, he would have been successful as well.
But that is the major problem, and why I think it was an egregious mistake in the movie. The plan "goes wrong" because it was idiotic. So idiotic that it is unrealistic that Beck, a highly intelligent person, would have made such a glaring oversight. Leaving the kids on the bridge but not trapping them at all allowed them to make an easy escape.
I think the point is that Beck thinks he is the smartest person in the room and that this plan is going to work. Should he take into account MJ and co's free will, yes, but he is so maniacal (and not thinking rationally) that it does not cross his mind. This is proven by the fact that as his plan is failing around him that he still wants his suit pressed and ready to meet the Queen because it will work out in the end in his mind. Also, to your point, having them walk in front of a train or walk off the bridge, would not make him a hero. He needed real casualties and Peter's friends were the place to start. Finally, in the sequence showing Beck and his team preparing for the attack, he was focused on the theatrics of the attack and, again, thought the size of it alone would work (he wanted it bigger, scarier, more forceful).
Suggested correction: Fury is well aware of the drone system (he berates Peter for misusing it earlier). If Beck simply utilised EDITH to kill the students, it would give away that Beck was using the drones for his own gain. Once Fury was dead, he could have used EDITH had the original plan failed, but he certainly couldn't do it until after Fury (and potentially other SHIELD agents) had been taken out. He was going to attack London no matter what, so he took the opportunity to take out Ned, MJ and Betty at the same time.
This doesn't stop him from using a targeted drone strike to kill the kids, he was planning on using it to kill Fury anyway. The fact that he fails in his strike against Fury is irrelevant to the fact that he needed those kids dead and decided to take a round-about way of accomplishing this goal. Again, he doesn't have to use a drone strike, he is perfectly capable of using the illusion technology to force the bus off a cliff or into some other immediate danger. Having a henchman drive the bus to a bridge and hope the kids are dumb enough not to escape danger when literally nothing is forcing them to just stand there and be killed is ridiculously idiotic.
Suggested correction: Characters, even intelligent ones, are allowed to make bad tactical decisions. Real-life history is replete with examples. Just because it seems unlikely doesn't make it a plot hole.
True - this was originally submitted as "stupidity", which is slightly different, but this seemed like such a massive oversight that it qualified as a plot hole.
Suggested correction: Beck's intentions were to make it look like the kids were killed in the attack by the monster. Had he just killed them with a drone out right, it would have obviously looked like murder and foul play bringing in more investigations and potential problems for him.
But again, he doesn't need to use a drone strike he can use the illusion technology to trick them into an accident. Even what he chooses to do (just leaving them on the bridge) would have also been fine had he trapped them there at all. Just leaving them there without trapping them is so stupid it is unbelievable. It's like leaving someone on train tracks but not tying them up.
Suggested correction: He was an insane person and wasn't thinking fully rationally.
18th Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Unless the character is being portrayed as a bumbling oaf then their car is always spotlessly clean inside and out. No empty sweet wrappers, drinks cans, receipts, window streaks etc.
Correction: How is this a mistake? Clean people do exist and it is not a mistake to want to film them. Cleanliness is a virtue, and the films might want to deliberately exploit the fact. Women with hourglass-shaped bodies? Now, that's a mistake.
Every single person? I've never, in my life, been inside a spotlessly clean car.
Bear in mind the vast majority of the time we aren't shown the entirety of the car. My car's pretty clean but has bits of leaves, etc. in the footwell because I never clean there - no movie ever shows the footwells! I don't throw random garbage around the inside either, it gets put in the side pockets, again, not somewhere that tends to be of great focus in movies.
Films are intended to bend reality. Wanting to have clean cars in the film is not automatically a mistake. It is at best a cliche or trope. Sometimes, it is advocacy.
30th Apr 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: When the Avengers got the space stone and mind stone from the past, they were in the form of the Tesseract and the scepter, but when Steve goes back to replace them, they are in their raw forms. If they want to undo any offshoot timelines, they would have to replace the time stones in their original encasements, at least some of which have been destroyed in the process of obtaining the raw stones. If the Tesseract doesn't exist in Tesseract form before Captain Marvel, would the light speed ship by Dr Larson have been made, etc. And the events of Avengers 1 would have been altered...Ultron/Vision/Scarlet Witch/Quicksilver timelines would likely be disrupted if the scepter itself is not replaced, only the mind stone. It would be an anomaly in the time line.
Correction: They aren't concerned with creating any alternate timelines, as they won't affect their own timeline. They only agree to return the Stones to the point where they are taken in order to avoid any major catastrophes being caused by the Stones' absence in their respective timelines (i.e. the Ancient One tells Dr. Banner that she needs the Time Stone returned to her reality, as it is her chief weapon against forces of darkness). The Mind Stone ending up in an alternate timeline as a result of being removed from Loki's scepter and not leading to the creation of Ultron or giving the Maximoff twins their powers will not lead to a catastrophic event.
This is not consistent with Captain America's comment "I know, clip all the branches"
Another way around that would be to return the Time Stone to the Ancient One first and then have her use the Time Stone to return the Space and Mind Stones to their previous housings. We know the Time Stone is capable of doing that because Thanos used it to bring the Mind Stone back into existence after Scarlet Witch destroyed it.
Their primary concern appears to be removing the stones from where they "should" be, or taking one and leaving others - the ancient one implies it's that imbalance which causes a "bad" timeline to branch off, the black line she demonstrates, not just making other changes. Otherwise even Hawkeye going back in time and removing a baseball glove would have catastrophic consequences and need to be remedied.
He has the infinity stones. It's quite possible he could have used them in some fashion to return the others to the original form. For example, he could have done it or asked the Ancient One to use the time stone to return them to their original form. Regardless, there is no way he or Hulk wouldn't have planned for this before he left. They were in no rush to return them. They had a time machine.
1st May 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: When the portals are opened you can see the Asgardian army coming through, but the Asgardian army was destroyed by Hela in Thor: Ragnarok.
Correction: They are Asgardians from New Asgard. They have had 5 years to train new soldiers.
At the beginning of Infinity War the spaceship with Asgardian refugees is intercepted by Thanos. There are a lot of dead people on the floor and the ship is completely destroyed with the power stone. It's not explained how some Asgardians escaped from the ship and reached Earth. In Endgame, new Asgard is just an small village with the survivors from the spaceship and the snap. 5 years isn't enough time to reassemble an army because most of the survivors were woman and children that escaped from the ship.
Asgardian women are perfectly capable of being fearsome warriors, and some of the children will now be young adults. After what happened to their people it's hardly beyond belief that a lot of them would be keen to become fighters to defend their fragile nation.
Correction: Actually when the Asgardians come through you only see a handful, 5 years is plenty to turn 16 year olds into 21 year old soldiers.
The Bifrost battle in Thor: Ragnarok shows ordinary Asgardian men and women fighting. They may not be elite guards but they were willing to fight.
22nd Sep 2018
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Corrected entry: It is revealed that Loki's scepter is holding an infinity stone. That would mean Thanos willingly gave Loki, a trickster he doesn't even know, the only infinity stone he had at the time. That makes no sense.
Correction: This isn't a plot hole, merely a plot point. Thanos needs all of the infinity stones. Realistically, the mind stone alone isn't much use to Thanos, but it gives Loki an advantage in acquiring the Space Stone. By using the mind stone, Loki is able to build a team of people to help him, and turn his enemies against each other and he was very nearly successful in achieving his goal. It is also made clear in the film that Thanos and The Other can punish Loki for failure without having to be on Earth with him. Loki's fear of Thanos would keep him in line.
Correction: Thanos used Loki to gain the Tesseract, the space stone and gave Loki the mind stone to help the Chitauri invade Earth and retrieve the space stone for him.
Thanos has been searching for the stones for for a very long time, finds one, but gives it away to gain another. That makes 0 sense, considering he needs all 6 to complete his task.
As the other correction states, one stone alone isn't all that useful to him though. He can still exert control over Loki, so he's not giving it away, he's just providing Loki with a tool to get another one, then Thanos will claim them both.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: There is not to much to do. The building is about to fall, and they only wait for someone to help.
Anastasios Anastasatos
Even if they were waiting for someone's help, it doesn't explain their behavior. They should have showed a lot of concern if they cared about her so much. How could they be completely sure that help would arrive? What would have happened if help wasn't coming? How could they react if she fell but Spider-Man hasn't arrived? There was also possibility that building would collapse much sooner than they expected. Since they care about Gwen very much, they should be very concerned or at least worried. Even if there was not too much to do, they should have tried to take some action if help wasn't arriving or if building was collapsing faster. This entry is correct. This is a mistake.
None of us can dictate how someone "should" act in every given situation. Her dad's literally just realised who it is, he's figuring out of the situation. What, you think he should be screaming and waving his hands around? He's an experienced police officer, well versed in staying calm under pressure. His reaction is entirely appropriate, and idle speculation about "what if she fell without Spider-Man saving her" is irrelevant. Not everyone in life panics over hypotheticals.
Jon Sandys ★
Maybe Gwen's father is well versed in staying calm under pressure but Eddie is not. At least Eddie should have reacted more intensely.
Eddie's portrayed as a complete and utter jerk throughout the film. Even after Spider-Man saves Gwen, he barely checks on her, only giving her a (very) half-hearted "Thank god you're OK" before turning his focus to Spider-Man. It's clear he doesn't really care about her as a person. Hence, he doesn't really react much to her life being in danger.
TedStixon
Agreed, his lack of reaction and indifference were done deliberately. Filmmakers wanted to hint to everybody how truly callous and heartless a person Eddie is, as he was very willing to photograph Gwen falling to her death. The movie's novelization takes this even further, depicting him as someone who actively hopes to find dead bodies and disasters to take pictures of.