Yes, a 120 megapixel, 35mm (24x36) chip. That is, by the way, about 14 000 lines per inch. 59.7 of those sensors would be needed to fill a 8"x10" frame. So at this pixel density, what you thought was a "mere 120 megapixel" actually becomes a 7.168 gigapixel image.
That is an absurdly high number; printing at 300 dpi, (assuming square image for lazyness), that would make a print 24 feet across.
But who looks at a billboard with a magnifier?
Only use I can conceive (though there are, of course, probably more) is using a surveillance camera with, say, a 106 degree FOV (16 mm lens) and crop 440x into it for a 500 mm FOV (5 degrees) with an end result close to a modern camera - 16 mp. But this would require lenses far above and beyond current top of the line, professional lenses: current pixel densities in DX cameras (that are much more dense than 35mm) are already able to resolve more than even the center (which is the part with the best resolution) of modern lenses can show. Measurements go around 2000-2500 lines per inch for golden-ring Nikon and Canon L series, a number which, by the way, fits perfectly well with current pixel densities (Canon is already pushing it a little at 24 mp, and next-gen 40mp will already need a refresh of the L series to perform optimally). Referring back to the 14k lines per inch for the sensor above, you can see how much would be wasted without any currently existing lens that can resolve that much.
For the record, I shoot with a 12mp D700. Not as good low-light as a D3s (which is about 2 stops better) yet I am still amazed that I can shoot handheld after sundown without any noise or even by moonlight in the dead of night if I'm ready to compromise a little bit on noise (6400-12800 iso). I can't understand people who want more pixels than that; reducing noise in low-light situations is my main priority and more pixels are directly counter to that.