Review: 31217 Tiger

I'm not sure why they put the flowers with the tiger, are they native to where tigers come from? It doesn't really work as a camouflage effect either. Separately I would buy the flowers, the tiger no, I give this one a miss.

It looks pretty good, and my mother (who loves tigers) would probably love this!

As far as I'm concerned, the 3 in 1 Tiger Creator set is one of the best designed sets of all time, and this one does that tiger-theme justice.

I really love this and hope to pick it up and combine it with various art so it ends up all 3D and cool.

But then, I am thoroughly allergic to having empty bits of wall, so.

@kingalbino said:
"I do not get this at all, are they now promoting hunting where we mount our kills on the walls...? :)"

As opposed to simply taking the helmets from the vanquished.....or sometimes their busts....oh, and their weapons.....well, also their arms.

Next up - Storm's boots and Luke's hand!

Da, why is there a tiger on the wall and a dwarf coming out of our toilet?

Lego designers need to cut back on their fun Amsterdam weekends. Yikes.

Arc Dragon of Focus? Psychedelic Wall Tiger of Strangeness??? Definitely not the reviews I'm looking for. Can't wait until Cap'n gets in from Transylvania!

Deacapitated dead tiger.

Can’t wait to buy one plus multiple copies for my Bengals-loving friends. Who Dey!

Getting serious Jungle Book vibes from this.
Of course I mean the 1967 original Disney classic, not the awful live action remake.

@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"I don't know.....on the one hand those flowers are a weird inclusion that only ramp up the price, but without those, it looks kinda meh.

Not a set for me."

The flowers don't "ramp up the price", because the retails prices for LEGO sets are determined in advance, and then designers have to create sets within that budget. So, prices aren't 'inflated' by 'adding extra parts', as is often uttered in comment sections. It's possible the flowers were added because the designers had leftover budget, but I genuinely think the flowers were intended here, to make the build more colourful -- and it does look really good. That said, I can't really justify the price tag either, no matter how nice it looks and whether the price-to-part ratio looks good on paper. "

Yes, I know Lego uses this silly system, but that doesn't change the fact that this just doesn't look like €60 of value to me. And in part that's because of a good number of pieces are wasted on the flowers instead of the main build. Designer designed a €40 set and fixed that by adding unnecessary stuff. Dare I say a tiger only needs one single flower, a pink one? ;-)

And yes, the PPP for this set isn't terrible. But considering there's no minifigs, no printed pieces, and no particularly large or special pieces, I'm still not impressed.
(it certainly isn't the worst set either, let that be clear)

This is a weird set, I don't understand the concept, why the flowers? I would love to learn who came up with this idea and what was the reasoning behind it.

@WizardOfOss said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"I don't know.....on the one hand those flowers are a weird inclusion that only ramp up the price, but without those, it looks kinda meh.

Not a set for me."

The flowers don't "ramp up the price", because the retails prices for LEGO sets are determined in advance, and then designers have to create sets within that budget. So, prices aren't 'inflated' by 'adding extra parts', as is often uttered in comment sections. It's possible the flowers were added because the designers had leftover budget, but I genuinely think the flowers were intended here, to make the build more colourful -- and it does look really good. That said, I can't really justify the price tag either, no matter how nice it looks and whether the price-to-part ratio looks good on paper. "

Yes, I know Lego uses this silly system, but that doesn't change the fact that this just doesn't look like €60 of value to me. And in part that's because of a good number of pieces are wasted on the flowers instead of the main build. Designer designed a €40 set and fixed that by adding unnecessary stuff. Dare I say a tiger only needs one single flower, a pink one? ;-)

And yes, the PPP for this set isn't terrible. But considering there's no minifigs, no printed pieces, and no particularly large or special pieces, I'm still not impressed.
(it certainly isn't the worst set either, let that be clear)"

Perhaps the designer came up with this really cool tiger design and then someone from management said: "The tiger looks mean, can we fix that with the remaining parts budget?"

I agree 40 or so bucks would be ideal for this set. Or you'd have to love LEGO tigers an awful lot.

I think it's very well-designed. However, I don't like art with big eyes. It makes me feel like I'm being "stared" at.

So much hate from AFOL’s here, for what is a clearly striking, original, colourful and well-designed set!

You people are never happy!

Probably just craving more Star Wars Original Trilogy sets!…..

@lemish34 said:
"You people are never happy!"

What do You mean you people?!

:o)

@yellowcastle said:
" @lemish34 said:
"You people are never happy!"

What do You mean you people?!

:o)"

Why do hurtful stereotypes exist, why does laziness make their use so prevalent? (cries more in coffee)

"It's an eye-catching and reasonably life-like portrait of a Bengal tiger poking its head out between colourful flowers." Presumably " In the forests of the night," although the flowers take something away from the fearful symmetry.

@lemish34 said:
"So much hate from AFOL’s here, for what is a clearly striking, original, colourful and well-designed set!

You people are never happy!

Probably just craving more Star Wars Original Trilogy sets!….."

If a crazy psychedelic expensive wall tiger flower diorama makes you happy.... you were undoubtedly already 'highly happy' and probably have been for some time?

@ForestMenOfEndor said:
"Can’t wait to buy one plus multiple copies for my Bengals-loving friends. Who Dey!"

Um...if I raise my hand, does that mean you're sending me a free copy?

@PurpleDave said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
"Can’t wait to buy one plus multiple copies for my Bengals-loving friends. Who Dey!"

Um...if I raise my hand, does that mean you're sending me a free copy?"

Own up, you just want the parts to MOC with.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
"Can’t wait to buy one plus multiple copies for my Bengals-loving friends. Who Dey!"

Um...if I raise my hand, does that mean you're sending me a free copy?"

Own up, you just want the parts to MOC with."

Honestly, other than three cars (including Grem the Gremlin from Cars 2), I don't think I've built much in orange since co-building a 6' tall Tony the Tiger for the defunct Kelloggs Cereal City museum with J. Spencer Rezkalla and Jim Garrett.

@kingalbino said:
"I do not get this at all, are they now promoting hunting where we mount our kills on the walls...? :)"

It's a bas-relief sculpture, not a fully 3D one. And nobody mounts hunting trophies with an arrangement of flowers. It's clearly meant to represent a tiger on the prowl, sticking its face through a bit of foliage. In fact, the flowers are likely meant to make it clear that it's not supposed to be a head hanging on a wall.

Tempting. I'm a fan of tigers and I like the idea that this can be wall-mounted. Not sure about the mouth, though - it looks a little too Disney-fied.

It's nice and looks great, but is it $65 USD nice? I'm not convinced.

Miss for not using those cool new molded leaves.

@lordofdragonss said:
"Miss for not using those cool new molded leaves."

One man's garbage is another man's gold; the fact that everything's brick-built would be seen as a positive by some.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @lemish34 said:
"So much hate from AFOL’s here, for what is a clearly striking, original, colourful and well-designed set!

You people are never happy!

Probably just craving more Star Wars Original Trilogy sets!….."

If a crazy psychedelic expensive wall tiger flower diorama makes you happy.... you were undoubtedly already 'highly happy' and probably have been for some time?"

1/10, low effort

Felis Namaste

@StyleCounselor said:
" @lemish34 said:
"So much hate from AFOL’s here, for what is a clearly striking, original, colourful and well-designed set!

You people are never happy!

Probably just craving more Star Wars Original Trilogy sets!….."

If a crazy psychedelic expensive wall tiger flower diorama makes you happy.... you were undoubtedly already 'highly happy' and probably have been for some time?"

I mean … guilty on all accounts?

@PurpleDave said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
"Can’t wait to buy one plus multiple copies for my Bengals-loving friends. Who Dey!"

Um...if I raise my hand, does that mean you're sending me a free copy?"

Own up, you just want the parts to MOC with."

Honestly, other than three cars (including Grem the Gremlin from Cars 2), I don't think I've built much in orange since co-building a 6' tall Tony the Tiger for the defunct Kelloggs Cereal City museum with J. Spencer Rezkalla and Jim Garrett."

If you’re a Bengals fan in Detroit, go ahead and send your address! But you’re really going to make it a Tigers thing, aren’t you?

@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
"Can’t wait to buy one plus multiple copies for my Bengals-loving friends. Who Dey!"

Um...if I raise my hand, does that mean you're sending me a free copy?"

Own up, you just want the parts to MOC with."

Honestly, other than three cars (including Grem the Gremlin from Cars 2), I don't think I've built much in orange since co-building a 6' tall Tony the Tiger for the defunct Kelloggs Cereal City museum with J. Spencer Rezkalla and Jim Garrett."

If you’re a Bengals fan in Detroit, go ahead and send your address! But you’re really going to make it a Tigers thing, aren’t you?"

Ah. You're going to make it a sportsball thing? I thought we were talking about the animal.

@PurpleDave said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
"Can’t wait to buy one plus multiple copies for my Bengals-loving friends. Who Dey!"

Um...if I raise my hand, does that mean you're sending me a free copy?"

Own up, you just want the parts to MOC with."

Honestly, other than three cars (including Grem the Gremlin from Cars 2), I don't think I've built much in orange since co-building a 6' tall Tony the Tiger for the defunct Kelloggs Cereal City museum with J. Spencer Rezkalla and Jim Garrett."

If you’re a Bengals fan in Detroit, go ahead and send your address! But you’re really going to make it a Tigers thing, aren’t you?"

Ah. You're going to make it a sportsball thing? I thought we were talking about the animal."

Goooo Sports Team!

@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @lemish34 said:
"So much hate from AFOL’s here, for what is a clearly striking, original, colourful and well-designed set!

You people are never happy!

Probably just craving more Star Wars Original Trilogy sets!….."

If a crazy psychedelic expensive wall tiger flower diorama makes you happy.... you were undoubtedly already 'highly happy' and probably have been for some time?"

I mean … guilty on all accounts?"

Lucky!!

@AustinPowers said:
"Getting serious Jungle Book vibes from this.
Of course I mean the 1967 original Disney classic, not the awful live action remake. "

The "1967 Disney Classic" was not "the original".
The 1894 short story collection by Rudyard Kipling was the original.

Just saying

@Pongo said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"Getting serious Jungle Book vibes from this.
Of course I mean the 1967 original Disney classic, not the awful live action remake. "

The "1967 Disney Classic" was not "the original".
The 1894 short story collection by Rudyard Kipling was the original.

Just saying"
Of course, I am well aware of that. I was only talking about the various movie adaptations of said story.

@Pongo said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"Getting serious Jungle Book vibes from this.
Of course I mean the 1967 original Disney classic, not the awful live action remake. "

The "1967 Disney Classic" was not "the original".
The 1894 short story collection by Rudyard Kipling was the original.

Just saying"

The only two adaptations I’ve seen of JB that have actually gotten it right are Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and The White Seal. I think the only adaptations of JB2 I’ve seen have been worked into the main Mowgli story. But the live action adaptations keep improving and may one day get it right. I think one of the keys is going to be realizing you can’t keep Mowgli the same age for the entire story, as most of the stories with just animals happen when he’s young, and most of the stories with other humans occur much later in his teens/early 20’s.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Pongo said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"Getting serious Jungle Book vibes from this.
Of course I mean the 1967 original Disney classic, not the awful live action remake. "

The "1967 Disney Classic" was not "the original".
The 1894 short story collection by Rudyard Kipling was the original.

Just saying"

The only two adaptations I’ve seen of JB that have actually gotten it right are Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and The White Seal. I think the only adaptations of JB2 I’ve seen have been worked into the main Mowgli story. But the live action adaptations keep improving and may one day get it right. I think one of the keys is going to be realizing you can’t keep Mowgli the same age for the entire story, as most of the stories with just animals happen when he’s young, and most of the stories with other humans occur much later in his teens/early 20’s."
Perhaps it's because the 1967 Disney animation classic Jungle Book was the second movie I ever saw as a young kid in the cinema with my dad (the first was Bambi and the third was Snow White) that it holds a special place in my heart.
I don't care how accurate it is to the original story, to me it's a perfect movie that will always conjure up the sweetest memories and that is why I will treasure it forever.

@AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @Pongo said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"Getting serious Jungle Book vibes from this.
Of course I mean the 1967 original Disney classic, not the awful live action remake. "

The "1967 Disney Classic" was not "the original".
The 1894 short story collection by Rudyard Kipling was the original.

Just saying"

The only two adaptations I’ve seen of JB that have actually gotten it right are Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and The White Seal. I think the only adaptations of JB2 I’ve seen have been worked into the main Mowgli story. But the live action adaptations keep improving and may one day get it right. I think one of the keys is going to be realizing you can’t keep Mowgli the same age for the entire story, as most of the stories with just animals happen when he’s young, and most of the stories with other humans occur much later in his teens/early 20’s."
Perhaps it's because the 1967 Disney animation classic Jungle Book was the second movie I ever saw as a young kid in the cinema with my dad (the first was Bambi and the third was Snow White) that it holds a special place in my heart.
I don't care how accurate it is to the original story, to me it's a perfect movie that will always conjure up the sweetest memories and that is why I will treasure it forever. "

My family had a VHS tape of it that got rewatched a lot, so, yeah. Fond memories.

@AustinPowers said:
"Perhaps it's because the 1967 Disney animation classic Jungle Book was the second movie I ever saw as a young kid in the cinema with my dad (the first was Bambi and the third was Snow White) that it holds a special place in my heart.
I don't care how accurate it is to the original story, to me it's a perfect movie that will always conjure up the sweetest memories and that is why I will treasure it forever. "

I mean, I get the nostalgia thing. First movie I ever saw was Pete’s Dragon (yes, even before Star Wars, Just Star Wars, even though the latter released earlier). I got a copy of it on DVD. And the remake. Still haven’t opened either one, but someday. However, for me, my first experiences were watching the animated shorts(?) in grade school, and my second experience was getting a bound Complete Works of Rudyard Kipling. I never could get into Kim, but it didn’t take me long to read through everything else, and the two Jungle Books (particularly the Mowgli stories) were my most frequent rereads. I know the Disney animated film more from watching TaleSpin than from the actual film, but I know that every film version I’ve seen has gotten a bit closer to being faithful to the original text.

The honest Trailer for the 1967 Jungle Book is pretty funny, even if it gives "I Wanna Be Like You short shrift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MURigSnzUBk

@bricks4everyone said:
"This is a weird set, I don't understand the concept, why the flowers? I would love to learn who came up with this idea and what was the reasoning behind it."

Not sure who came up with the concept originally but it's been an art trend for many years now.

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=5df6adc950437353&sxsrf=AE3TifN6yg3QEoUWe2sAStR0k-F37RFSdw:1749940795408&q=tiger%27s+head+with+flowers&udm=2&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeioyp3OhN11EY0n5qfq-zENwnGygERInUV_0g0XKeHGJRAdFPaX_SSIJt7xYUfpm-75lA8Uar42yNWdqGuJlUAnnlv16BipdooSQJL-P1_PJodO0RDELOXukUSz3qE8wFgOgTN562kIk-GVNgLXl3bTs1TumTj5KawAeoUMc6LWdc2KFWg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB4fO7_fGNAxVRj4kEHZwpOjYQtKgLegQIFRAB&biw=1366&bih=645

@TheOtherMike said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @Pongo said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"Getting serious Jungle Book vibes from this.
Of course I mean the 1967 original Disney classic, not the awful live action remake. "

The "1967 Disney Classic" was not "the original".
The 1894 short story collection by Rudyard Kipling was the original.

Just saying"

The only two adaptations I’ve seen of JB that have actually gotten it right are Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and The White Seal. I think the only adaptations of JB2 I’ve seen have been worked into the main Mowgli story. But the live action adaptations keep improving and may one day get it right. I think one of the keys is going to be realizing you can’t keep Mowgli the same age for the entire story, as most of the stories with just animals happen when he’s young, and most of the stories with other humans occur much later in his teens/early 20’s."
Perhaps it's because the 1967 Disney animation classic Jungle Book was the second movie I ever saw as a young kid in the cinema with my dad (the first was Bambi and the third was Snow White) that it holds a special place in my heart.
I don't care how accurate it is to the original story, to me it's a perfect movie that will always conjure up the sweetest memories and that is why I will treasure it forever. "

My family had a VHS tape of it that got rewatched a lot, so, yeah. Fond memories."

Did somebody say 'Rikki-Tikki-Tavi'???!!!!

That's my jam!!

Love ya', Chuck Jones!!

@StyleCounselor said:
"Did somebody say 'Rikki-Tikki-Tavi'???!!!!

That's my jam!!

Love ya', Chuck Jones!!"

I don’t even remember how many times I watched that in class, but it seemed pretty popular as a time-filler class activity. The White Seal was shown to us less frequently. Another repeat short film was The Lorax.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @Pongo said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"Getting serious Jungle Book vibes from this.
Of course I mean the 1967 original Disney classic, not the awful live action remake. "

The "1967 Disney Classic" was not "the original".
The 1894 short story collection by Rudyard Kipling was the original.

Just saying"

The only two adaptations I’ve seen of JB that have actually gotten it right are Rikki-Tikki-Tavi and The White Seal. I think the only adaptations of JB2 I’ve seen have been worked into the main Mowgli story. But the live action adaptations keep improving and may one day get it right. I think one of the keys is going to be realizing you can’t keep Mowgli the same age for the entire story, as most of the stories with just animals happen when he’s young, and most of the stories with other humans occur much later in his teens/early 20’s."
Perhaps it's because the 1967 Disney animation classic Jungle Book was the second movie I ever saw as a young kid in the cinema with my dad (the first was Bambi and the third was Snow White) that it holds a special place in my heart.
I don't care how accurate it is to the original story, to me it's a perfect movie that will always conjure up the sweetest memories and that is why I will treasure it forever. "

My family had a VHS tape of it that got rewatched a lot, so, yeah. Fond memories."

Did somebody say 'Rikki-Tikki-Tavi'???!!!!

That's my jam!!

Love ya', Chuck Jones!!"

Don't think I've seen that, but I will definitely echo the Chuck Jones love.

@TheOtherMike said:
"Don't think I've seen that, but I will definitely echo the Chuck Jones love."

I tried finding RTT on YouTube, but it doesn’t look like a full presentation is available. Chuck Jones did two half-hour TV specials in 1975, one for RTT, and the other for The White Seal. My elementary school must have acquired both in a package deal, since I think they were on a small format reel-to-reel film, like 8mm (which probably had to be synched with a cassette player or something for sound).