How many people do you think would've died in a disaster like this?

Of course accepting for a second that a scenario like this would be possible. Hundreds of thousands at the very minimum surely? Granted I'm no expert in earthquakes or emergency situations but all this happened within 24 hours I think. I don't know how many people in San Francisco would've been able to evacuate in such a small amount of time and this not including the people who died in LA.

Which brings me to the problem with the way mass destruction is portrayed in movies like this where the mass death is sidelined, often for some misplaced sense of patriotism. Forget hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in the deadliest set of earthquakes in human history and the millions more displaced, let's focus on a shot of the all 'Murican nuclear family with the star spangled banner waving and merely dismiss the enormity of what's just happened by saying we'll merely just 'rebuild'.

I think there is a wide problem in Hollywood in general with the way destruction is portrayed, moreso given the advaincing CGI tools given to directors. If a director wants to be bold with human casualties in some massive action set piece, go ahead. But don't portray them as just insignificant objects when making your scene. It's what I hated about GI Joe: Retaliation the most. London gets nuked at the end, 8 million people incinderated to ash in one go in one of the most evil acts ever and yet the world leaders merely look disapprovingly at the bad guy. And at the end of the movie, no one mentions London so that they can focus on the heroes 'saving the day'. Man of Steel had a similar problem too when thousands probably perished in the fight between Superman and Zod yet no one mentions the destruction at the end because hey, Supes stopped Zod eventually. Snyder tried to backpedal of course with the sequel by acknowledging the damage with an elaborate plot but whatever.

Just my rant. But I guess the excuse as always it, it's only a movie!