Talk:An American Tail: Fievel Goes West

Sacrificial Lamb?

Does anyone else wonder what the Universal team was thinking in releasing this movie against Beauty and the Beast?

The only thing I can think of is that they had so little confidence that they threw it in as a sacrificial lamb.

WAVY 10 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Was it retconned?

I was about to add this. I saw it on an eBay review referring to these movies.

"*At the end of the sequel, "An American Tail: The Treasure of Manhattan Island" has a sequence that basically retconned the entire movie out of existence."

Is this accurate?

208.27.124.228 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's at the start of the film. Fievel mentioned he had a dream where the Mouskawitzes moved to the west. This implies that both the film and the TV series Fievel's American Tails never actually happened. Iprefer to think that AT2 happens after AT3 and AT4. (AndrewAnorak 10:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

I always thought that Fievel Goes West was, in chronological order, the successor to Treasure of Manhattan Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarLegacy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw the third movie I was under the impression that the second movie was Fievel's dream. It would make sense as in the film Fievel turns his family hat into a cowboy hat at the beginning (somehow I don't think a Russian hat would have a cowboy hat inside) and then at the end of the film he turned it back to normal. Emperor001 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Trivia entry

I'm not sure about this line.

"In an all-too-brief shot during the Cat raid on the mice slums, Tony and Bridget are briefly seen careening into a sewer on a rollerskate with three children. This seems to suggest that Bridget and Tony had married by now and had had children."

I don't remember them appearing in a rollerskate scene (haven't watched it in a while), but I think there was a scene after they arrived out west where it looks like Tony is carrying Bridget "over the threshold"; which would imply that they may have been newlyweds.

Which is correct?

WAVY 10 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of newlyweds in a short scene in Green River, but they are not Tony and Bridget. Many have confused this scene with the one immediately after, in which Tony, Bridget, and their *one* child (not three) are seen moving into their new house.

--76.247.51.1 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another question

Concerning the following statement:

Tanya becomes a famous singer (although she also appears to be happy with the way she was before by the end)

From what I recall, I don't think it was ever stated in the movie whether or not Tanya does become a famous singer. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ummm..i don't get this

Fivel cn't be 8 in the movie becaus ethe timeline betwween the 1st movie and the sequel is 7 years a part-unnamed (user agian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.190.137 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fourth in series

Is this movie really chronologically 4th as stated in the article? As noted in the discussion above the third movie may very well have retconned this movie into a dream sequence. Emperor001 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't find any reliable sources for it, so I think it's best that we should just leave it in production order. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

1998 VHS Rerelease

Shouldn't it be noted that both the first American Tail and Fievel Goes West (which was first released onto video and laserdisc in 1992) were digitally restored and rereleased onto VHS in August of 1998? The 1998 rereleases of both films came in a limited edition boxed 2-pack set with both videos having clamshell VHS cases. I have two sources to prove this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm1qiurgWLI - Promo for the two films rerelease.

http://vhscollector.com/movie/american-tail-2-pack - Information about the VHS 2-pack.

--JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Done Well, I added the information I wanted to get up onto the article on Friday. The wording might have to be fixed up a little bit, though. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead

The lead really should be rewritten. It's full of excessive details and reads like it was written by an enthusiastic young fan. It lists "alternate" titles that just add a number, which is kind of a pointless "also known as". The opening sentence is absurdly long and is hard to even understand. What does "with producer Steven Spielberg for Amblin Entertainment" even mean? And why does the lead only mention Spielberg, not the other producer? It's full of baffling choices like this. I dislike writing leads, but I can try to remember to come back and do something about this later, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)