MovieChat Forums > The Living Daylights (1987) Discussion > I'm sad that they didn't use the "C-130 ...

I'm sad that they didn't use the "C-130 lands on an aircraft carrier"

posted 8 years ago by philoj
3 replies | jump to latest

A note in the trivia section says the original script idea was for the C-130 to land on an aircraft carrier. I wish they'd gone for that so I could listen to folks prattle on and on about how a C-130 was too big to land on an aircraft carrier.

Because aircraft carriers are bigger than most people realize. http://i.imgur.com/qJfE6WG.png

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

[–] tim-xy 8 years ago

It would have been an awesome scene for sure.

I have no idea if a C-130 can actually land on an aircraft carrier or not. I presume it's not a question of the plane fitting on the carrier, but a question of what length runway it requires to land. And the difficulty of finding a carrier to film on...? Plus the expense. Back then the budget for the films was not a seemingly unlimited as it is nowadays. The (great) thing with the Bond stunts is that they are always real stuff their stunt team could actually pull off. None of the physically impossible stuff that can only be created with CGI.

[–] philoj 8 years ago

Click on the link I included - that's a C-130 that landed on the deck of the USS Forrestal.

Ah - here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

[–] Galagatron 7 years ago

The aircraft carrier would have been logistically crazy. People could have thought "oh so there just happens to be an aircraft carrier out there, and they are letting them land on it just because?"