Quick look: 40824 Sweetheart Tweety Bird
Posted by Huw,Tweety is the yellow canary from Warner Brother's Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies series of cartoons.
They usually involve Sylvester the cat trying to eat him and as far as I can tell the character's connection with love and Valentine's day is only because he's seen as cute.
40824 Sweetheart Tweety Bird is certainly that!
Summary
40824 Sweetheart Tweety Bird, 412 pieces.
£29.99 / $34.99 / €34.99 | 7.3p/8.5c/8.5c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
I tawt I taw a puddy tat...
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
The bird is depicted as Cupid, with white wings rather than the small yellow ones seen in the cartoons, and stands on a cloud-like plinth surrounded by floating white hearts. It's about 15cm tall and has very organic shaping thanks to all the curved pieces at designers' disposal nowadays. The model looks as good from the back as from the front.
The figure can be removed from the stand easily and it displays just as well without it. I thus think it's a bit superfluous, perhaps added only to bulk up the piece count and price.
There's a clip on his right arm (who knew birds had arms!) with which to hold either a bouquet of flowers or Cupid's bow and arrow.
The arms and wings are attached using small ball joints allowing them to be posed, and his neck is similarly jointed so can be tilted up, down, left and right.
It's cute model, if a tad expensive at £29.99/$34.99/€34.99, but it might just be the thing to gift your sweetheart on Valentine's Day.
79 likes
36 comments on this article
Tweety Bird has made the transition to brick form a lot better that I expected it would.
This is such a bizarre set, but I do think the execution of it is very good.
When did this get revealed?
I DID...I DID see a puddy tat.....
I mean, yeah, it looks exactly like the cartoon-character - but I'm not sure I'd consider that a plus, in this case. Tweety is an abomination, and now he's armed. Literally.
Wait, why would you give a bird additional wings? What... what is going on?
This looks like it would be an amazing set to draft!!!
Do birds need extra wings? This is a bizarre set, rates up there with Chewbacca as being the stuff of nightmares.
@kingalbino said:
"Do birds need extra wings? This is a bizarre set, rates up there with Chewbacca as being the stuff of nightmares."
...and the Rocket model from last year
chonky feet
I just found out about the existence of this set
I don’t think LEGO is gonna give you credit for this review, lol.
Yeah, this definitely is... a set.
Not one I'll ever buy, but still. Someone somewhere will probably find even this thing attractive.
@AustinPowers said:
"Yeah, this definitely is... a set.
Not one I'll ever buy, but still. Someone somewhere will probably find even this thing attractive. "
This is way better than the Jacob’s Ladder Hagrid and Harry demons.
Despite being Tweety, this is significantly less cursed than most of the Looney Tunes CMF series.
Very conflicted...I want to think it's cute. But it just quite isn't. And when are they gonna make those Mixel joints in other colors?
And apart from that, I just don't get why it's a Cupid version. Indeed, a bird with extra wings is weird, but was this even a thing in the cartoons? Both the base and the accessories add very little. Would have been a much more interesting set if it was Just Tweety without all the junk for like €20 or so.
@yellowcastle said:
"I don’t think LEGO is gonna give you credit for this review, lol."
It's not a review, just a quick look to raise awareness, which it seems to have done. There's only so much one can write about a model like this, and it's not much!
The Tweety-Pie part looks quite good. I'm not so sure about the Cupid add-ons though. If it was Tweety-Pie and Sylvester, I might have gone for it. I always preferred Sylvester to the annoying little bird. Same with Tom and Jerry.
The different joins on the head give poor Tweety a kind of lobotomised look, especially from the back.
Also, the grey pit stains of the ball and socket joint don't help the overall look...
Still, not a bad model, but I'm not rushing out to get it.
This reminds me of the Looney Tunes merchandise your grandma bought at the Warner Brothers Store in the mid-90's. Not really related to anything people know the characters for, but cutesy.
I am surprised we got this instead of a second CMF series. Considering WB owns not just Looney Tunes, but Hannah Barbara, Cartoon Network and Tiny Toons & Animaniacs; that's a plethora of characters to use in CMF line ups in addition to the O.G. Looney Tunes cast.
@TheBrickBulbasaur said:
"When did this get revealed?"
Don't recall a formal announcement but saw it on the shelf January 1st :)
@TheBrickBulbasaur said:
"When did this get revealed?"
This is the first I've ever heard of its existence as well.
Cover up everything in the pictures below the forehead, and it becomes a Minion ;-)
It's so weird. Would've liked it better if it was pink, had a horned helmet, and shouted: "Kill the wabbit!"
cursed
After this, I hope there's a Tazmanian Devil Leprechaun in the works for St. Patricks Day!
It's so weird to me that this is the first actual set, Brickheadz and CMF aside, that we get from the Looney Tunes license? I only knew about it because I saw it on Brickset's 'site updates' sidebar a few weeks ago and had to double-take. There's so much they could have done with this, and we get just...
A Valentine's Tweety that I think I saw a plushie of a couple decades ago.
He looks decent enough. On the subject of arms vs. wings, in the cartoons he has just the one pair of appendages on his upper body that can function as either depending on the needs of the situation at hand (based on 'rule of funny'), so it's likely that the wings here are just fake accessories he's wearing to enhance the 'Cupid' image. Like I said, I feel like I've seen Valentine's plushies of him that do the same thing.
If he'd been just the character and for a lower price, I might have thought about picking him up for the novelty; I did love the Tweety's High-Flying Adventure movie as a kid, and this is a nice representation of the character. As it stands, though, probably not. I just...
Don't understand how this is the first and so far only real Looney Tunes set we've got?
It was a day 1 purchase for me. Very cute. Though I left out all the Cupid/love garbage so it’s just plain Tweety…as it should of been
@Reventon said:
"... as it should of been"
of ???
What's wrong with "have"?
I assume it's some kind of slang since I read this quite often nowadays. But what does it mean?
It’s cute, but a really random set seeing we haven’t had any Looney Tunes stuff in three or so years
Didn't know this existed, and at that price it doesn't change anything now I do.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Reventon said:
"... as it should of been"
of ???
What's wrong with "have"?
I assume it's some kind of slang since I read this quite often nowadays. But what does it mean? "
It’s not slang but an error due to phonetic spelling; it’s common to truncate should have in speech to should’ve. Some speakers type this as of, instead of the shortened ‘ve form of have. HTH
Looney Tunes feels kind of retro to me, are they still showing them on TV? Do kids even watch TV any more?
I could have sworn I'd seen a reveal article about this some time ago, but a news search for "Tweety" only comes up with this article and the reveal and review of the CMF series. Huh...
Vewy scarewey.
Lego exclusive so price won't drop. 35€ for such small thing is bad deal (if we compare what you can buy for it at retailers fe Blue bird 10331 or Bugatti 42151
Also it looks creepy (beside first photo, which looks good thanks to @Huw)
Although I've always liked Looney Tunes cartoons and comics, I'm a bit lost as why they decided to bypass Bugs Bunny, Tasmanian Devil, or even Daffy Duck as independent models before Tweety (though i expect there's probably enough rabbit sets atm). But it's probably after sets 43179 or 43243 that they're deciding to pick certain characters into display sets. They haven't really used their Looney Tunes IP licence apart from minifigs ( 71030-0 ) or the only one brickheadz 40559 so since the other WB ips are doing well (Harry Potter, Batman, DC, etc) they're slowly going to try out some sets and see what works. Obviously going on a cute offensive charm with Tweety is hoping to hit a wide range (pre-teens through to AFOLs), it'll be interesting if they can develop the Looney Tunes theme into something a bit more.
It's a little surprising to see a licensed character sculpture like this done as a seasonal set rather than as something with a more generic year-round vibe, but it is certainly a great likeness of the character! Makes me wonder if anybody could come up with an alternate build of 21349 as Sylvester…
@stefwaffles said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Reventon said:
"... as it should of been"
of ???
What's wrong with "have"?
I assume it's some kind of slang since I read this quite often nowadays. But what does it mean? "
It’s not slang but an error due to phonetic spelling; it’s common to truncate should have in speech to should’ve. Some speakers type this as of, instead of the shortened ‘ve form of have. HTH
Looney Tunes feels kind of retro to me, are they still showing them on TV? Do kids even watch TV any more?"
It's definitely not as active a franchise as it used to be, but they still do make new Looney Tunes shows and movies every now and then — no thanks to Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav's general disdain for animation and obsession with cancelling finished films. In particular, a film called "Coyote vs. Acme" performed very well in test screenings, but got unceremoniously cancelled for a 30-million-dollar tax write-off, which outraged a lot of folks in animation circles (especially people in the industry who were lucky enough to see the finished film).
One of the more recent incarnations is a series called "Looney Tunes Cartoons" that ran for six seasons on HBO Max (or "Max", as it's now known — thanks again, Zaslav). I haven't seen it myself, but everything I hear about it has been very positive, and a lot of people consider it a real "return to form" after years of more unorthodox attempts at reinventing the series.