Duckman Season 3 Episode 12 once and future duck part3 Part3: • Duckman once and futur... Part2: • Duckman once and futur... Part1: • Duckman once and futur...
"You will love her till the day you die" That line always fills me with such a profound sadness that I almost cry, but the follow up line " perhaps I dont need to know any more than that" fills me with so much hope that I think that regardless of how bad things can get, knowing that there is love out there so strong makes me feel that somehow everything will be ok. Even if it all falls apart in the end, for just that moment when things are right, that is what it means to be human
goatlll It is sweet, I also remember this topic but it was more lighter and funny in Malcom in the Middle: his father couldn't take a desicion till Lois remembered him when he decided to marry her. Yeah, everything and everyone is against it, life is not going to be perfect, but you can't deprive yourself on being with the ones you love.
Ya know this raises an interesting question...why didn't Duckman warn his past self about what was gonna happen to his wife? Maybe try to avert the disaster that took her from him? I mean I get the point of this episode, life is better when you don't know what's gonna happen to ya. Still the temptation had to be there.
What’s good is that the Wedding Duckman seems to be impressed and surprised rather than disappointed at the state of his future. He asked him one question and that’s it, and he left. He’s not expecting a future full of riches or fame - He just wanted reassurance of his choice.
@@zzodysseuszz The joke was that we didn't know why he kept saying that until AFTER he met the version of himself that talked super loudly, but he said it before that part because of the whole time travel thing.
“you’re gonna love her until the day you die” seems like such a crushingly sad line. but he smiles when he says it. despite everything, it’s still the right decision. and that reassures his younger self: “maybe i don’t need to know any more than that”
Jason Alexander says he'll never do the voice of Duckman again considering it did real damage to his voice, and by this scene alone, you can easily tell that reasoning holds up completely.
Usually if I heard something like that, I would be disappointed because the rest of the show isn't as good especially because this is the first episode I watched, but this episode is so stupid good that it would be insane to expect every one of them to be this good.
you laugh your ass off with all the duckmen torturing our hero,then he comes out with "you're gonna love her till the day you die"-amazing! plus,"great taste,more killing" is TOO funny!
The part where his past self asked about Beatrice and Duckman's answer about loving her till the day you'll die was the best part for to reasons 1. it's true he has and never will stop loving her And 2. Who cares about all the what ifs when all you need is that one absolute
This show really was a tearjerker and a Comedy gold genius. It left yah at times feeling really fucked up but when it gets down to it's feels. You've added something to yours. Could be bad or good but you only need to experience it once to never forget it.
@ottselguy I love Beatrice's tune, it just so... well words can not speak for emotions. Am I the only one touched on how Beatrice seems to keep him going even in the most inane situations?
"I gotta go to that recital. What if that makes something terrible happen? Then again, if I don't go, that could make something terrible happen. It isn't fair. I have to decide between two equally frightening options. If I wanted to do that, I'd vote!" Brilliant.
Is this the greatest of all Duckman episodes??? Only "America" would come close. But, to quote a Duckman episode, did "the Simpsons do this first" in a "Tree House of Horrors" episode?
duckman531 sorta, the tree house of horror segment was more about him going back in time and then coming back to see how the future is altered, but it wasn't as poignant as this episode, cuz that segment was just visual gags without profound substance, a problem that many fans of the simpsons series tend to see as a profound problem with the show as it is now. The gags seem to be all there are without any profound importance.
So do something when you know your hearts in it. But follow reason when your doing something so calculated and cold if you put your heart in it, it'd become as warm as Pluto.
Came for context about beatrice and i thought for some reason that their marriage ended in divorce but found out that she actually passed away and now im sobbing
actually their actions spoke louder than this sketch didn't they, they did allow "joe average" to have guns, that being said the implementation of psychological tests would likely have been welcomed given the purpose and object of the amendment would not be harmed
They only had muskets. It's why the first mass shooting in America took an entire British regiment; They only fired once. The second amendment says NOTHING about guns, only arms relative to the time. Let's see... if the Founding Fathers were so afraid of the unwashed masses to give them the right to vote... you had to own land to vote... then they'd hardly give everyone a weapon better than a musket. Because they're not dumb... right?
@@tskmaster3837 you are just anti gun so that is what you wish their reasoning to be, 1, they wanted to stand as a new class society compared to the caste society of Europe, an important aspect of most European powers was that for one thing commoners were not allowed to carry swords or pistols in public, only soldiers or nobles were allowed that privilige, in the fledgling republic they allowed all to do so the right to vote was based on property indeed, their reasoning was that those with property paid taxes and thus they should get to decide what was done with the budget, the most important reason was ofcourse that they did not want to end up with a government that took the interests of the masses over the interests of the elite, most of Europe had even more restrictive systems however, you may remember that France kind of fought a revolution for it as well and that this is considdered the end of the early modern period, ergo a major breaking point, (the US revolution was minor news in comparisson because they were not a world power, though it did help to inspire the French version) The absence of specificity is always in favor of those to whom it applies, that is how legal documents work, the founding fathers were all highly educated, often they had done law studies which were as good as always preceded by the customary liberal arts studies, latin, filosophy, ancient authors were a very prominent part of the curiculum of any university (western universities) the fact is that they knew very well what they wrote, and given the situation they were in I can confidently say that they did mean for the general public to have arms at their disposal, these arms were meant to make them capable of defending their liberties now you tell me, can you defend your liberty against tyrany by any modern day force using anything but modern firearms??? oh and there were no laws against anyone owning even cannons either, or against forming militias i find you very dishonest in your argumentation mostly because you have none, you just reason that they couldn't have forseen modern firearms so they can't have meant for them, but then the first science fiction story (kind of) was written by the romans and I am a monkeys' uncle if the average 18th century notable did not expect that advancements would keep being made in all fields, including firearms.
@@istoppedcaring6209 Na, I'm just anti idiot. Honestly, FRAMER'S INTENT is such a load of nonsense in the first place that we seem to be conditioned to accept that what NOW needs can be gleamed from what they knew all along back then. But where's the STATE in your paragraphs? You know, the main entity these UNITED STATE of America that favored over a centralized Government so much so that the first government failed utterly because the Founding Fathers were afraid to give it any power? That's the Well Regulated Militia part, no Central Army just a bunch of State Militias. Since that changed... that parts gets ignored and we're just left with "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"? Does that even work by your own arguments? That since the State lost its position of prominence after the Civil War, its position in the Second Amendment went immediately to the individual and "well regulated" somehow became "well, regulated?" Strict Constitutionalists: "I want this thing but how can I get this from the Constitution? Put some fingers over these words, obfuscate the whole point of the document being flexible and add that thoughts of the Framers can be known from its vague words and still have meaning to whatever modern society it happens to be? I would have gotten away with it too except for you... never mind, I did get away with it."
@@tskmaster3837 The second amendment right to bear arms is still highly valid, even with a centralized military in place. There are two reasons for this. One, while a major part of the second amendment was to allow people to form a militia if needed, it also was to allow them greater defensive capabilities as an individual, whether from a hostile person or the government itself (which, considering the surrounding amendments have to do with protections from the government, would make sense). While we would never need to gather to form a militia to defend our country under any reasonable normal circumstance, a weapon is vital in self defense. Do I agree with where the limit on what the weapon can be is? No. However, the concept of the right to best arms is extremely important. After all, it was was second amendment right behind protected free speech.
Yo. Haha. Fourteen years ago. I remember this era of UA-cam Episodes had to be loaded up in three parts, because UA-cam didn't support videos over ten minutes yet
I know the scene at the bed the one’s that sticks with us, but the overarching point’s great, too, if somewhat muddled. If you really genuinely try to factor in the abstract effects of every action you make, that’s not you being prepared. That’s you driving yourself insane. Yes, it is important to have some level of caution. But at a certain point you could freak yourself out so much you might be afraid to live anyway at all. So, just...I dunno, take a little (medically safe) risk, even a little one, and just learn how to adjust to potential fallout. I know this aspect of the episode’s a little more niche, but trust me, there are people who really neeed to hear about it.
Automatics did not exist when the construction was written, So I'm not sure he would agree Even the government never allowed or thought that every citizen should have access to a gatling gun or a maxim machine gun when they were invented.
@@mckenzie.latham91 The "Kalthoff repeater" was a musket designed to shoot up to 30 rounds a minute. It was made in 1630 and George Washington wanted to get some for the continental army, but they were too expensive. The founding fathers were also familiar with the "Lorenzoni repeating pistol" which held 7 shots which could be fired quickly. There's also the "Puckle gun", a crank operated revolving naval cannon. On a shipping manifest in 1722 it was referred to as a "machine gun". When the second amendment was written people could own their own cannons, such as the puckle gun, along with warships. The founding fathers were familiar with repeating weapons and understood the concept of an "automatic weapon".
Jame Madison would not have said the line about "Joe Average" owning a gun because the 2nd amendment says: The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
@AJ Clarke they wrote it so the government couldn't infringe upon our rights after they were gone. Like the British, who were literally confiscating firearms when the American Revolution happened. It was to protect us from futures governments. If you weren't so dense, it would make perfect sense, but I don't think you had much to begin with.
@@aaronbennett3966and the party that is doing the push towards dictatorship is the democrat party and their plants in the Republican Party (Rinos). The party that pushes for a total disarmament of its citizens, always starts by limiting what is used and how much ammo per clip. And with the media in the uniparty’s pocket, they can fearmonger all they want until we are stuck in a purge world. I say, we make the first purge, the only purge. The politicians that barricade themselves in their houses, will be the only ones removed, that’s what I say.
"You're gonna love her until the day you die" I fucking cried.
"Maybe I don't need to know anymore than that."
"You will love her till the day you die" That line always fills me with such a profound sadness that I almost cry, but the follow up line " perhaps I dont need to know any more than that" fills me with so much hope that I think that regardless of how bad things can get, knowing that there is love out there so strong makes me feel that somehow everything will be ok. Even if it all falls apart in the end, for just that moment when things are right, that is what it means to be human
goatlll It is sweet, I also remember this topic but it was more lighter and funny in Malcom in the Middle: his father couldn't take a desicion till Lois remembered him when he decided to marry her.
Yeah, everything and everyone is against it, life is not going to be perfect, but you can't deprive yourself on being with the ones you love.
cheers to that
Exactly. It’s a brilliantly simple reminder of the beauty and true joy of living. For each of us there are things for which we would suffer endlessly.
Ya know this raises an interesting question...why didn't Duckman warn his past self about what was gonna happen to his wife? Maybe try to avert the disaster that took her from him? I mean I get the point of this episode, life is better when you don't know what's gonna happen to ya. Still the temptation had to be there.
What’s good is that the Wedding Duckman seems to be impressed and surprised rather than disappointed at the state of his future. He asked him one question and that’s it, and he left. He’s not expecting a future full of riches or fame - He just wanted reassurance of his choice.
Exactly! It was so touching honestly that he was just thinking about his wife
Such a goofy episode and then THAT kicks you in the gut.
Hims cri on bed so sad
That's Duckman for you
try stomps on the gonads of your heart ...
I can’t believe that line came from a cartoon about a duck man and not a live action dramatic action movie
Please watch the rest of it, it pretty much is a drama just with a cartoon duck as a main character
The "Ow, my ears!" joke was GENIUS, holy shit
Wasn’t really paying any attention so I didn’t get the joke
@@zzodysseuszz The joke was that we didn't know why he kept saying that until AFTER he met the version of himself that talked super loudly, but he said it before that part because of the whole time travel thing.
“you’re gonna love her until the day you die” seems like such a crushingly sad line. but he smiles when he says it. despite everything, it’s still the right decision. and that reassures his younger self: “maybe i don’t need to know any more than that”
"You're gonna love her till the day you die."
Silently weeping because you know damn well it can go on longer than that.
"i have to decide between two equally frightening options. if i wanted to do that i'd vote!"
i love this show
Nowadays, it tends to be one frightening option dressed up to look like two different ones.
@@LordTyph- yep, the guy who's wide enough to be 2 guys!
Jason Alexander says he'll never do the voice of Duckman again considering it did real damage to his voice, and by this scene alone, you can easily tell that reasoning holds up completely.
I love how serious he gets when he talks to his younger self.
Wouldn’t you?
4:11 this is the best moment of Duckman I ever saw.
I can’t believe that sad and deep quote came from an underrated adult cartoon about an episode of a duck man going through an existential crisis.
"A predictable future is already the past"
-Alan Watts
This is my favorite episode of Duckman. Hands down
Usually if I heard something like that, I would be disappointed because the rest of the show isn't as good especially because this is the first episode I watched, but this episode is so stupid good that it would be insane to expect every one of them to be this good.
@@somecuntxxx complete truth my friend!
you laugh your ass off with all the duckmen torturing our hero,then he comes out with "you're gonna love her till the day you die"-amazing! plus,"great taste,more killing" is TOO funny!
“I have to decide between two equally frightening options, If it wanted to do that, I’d vote”
4:26
"Your gonna love her in till the day you die" 😢
That damn piano leitmotif whenever Beatrice is mentioned, strangles my heart every time.
The part where his past self asked about Beatrice and Duckman's answer about loving her till the day you'll die was the best part for to reasons
1. it's true he has and never will stop loving her
And 2. Who cares about all the what ifs when all you need is that one absolute
This show really was a tearjerker and a Comedy gold genius. It left yah at times feeling really fucked up but when it gets down to it's feels. You've added something to yours. Could be bad or good but you only need to experience it once to never forget it.
1:45 "I'd rather you didn't."
Costanza had a blast recording this🤣
Especially since Duckman is a widower. :<
Poor Duckman.
This whole skit is brilliant.
@ottselguy I love Beatrice's tune, it just so... well words can not speak for emotions. Am I the only one touched on how Beatrice seems to keep him going even in the most inane situations?
4:38
Now that's sweet
This has some of the best acting Jason has ever done.
4:13- Best moment of this episode.
"I gotta go to that recital. What if that makes something terrible happen? Then again, if I don't go, that could make something terrible happen. It isn't fair. I have to decide between two equally frightening options. If I wanted to do that, I'd vote!" Brilliant.
Wow. I almost forgot Duckman of all people tackled multiverse theory. Suck it Rick! And by extension Morty.
@ottselguy And then the young Duckman says "Maybe that's all I need to know." One of the most poignant moments I've ever seen on film or television!
Man i loved this show
a perfect representation of overthinking and why its wrong.
How did I miss this show
You were to young
This dialogue has been used for so many videos. Amazing
This is the first scene of this show that I've ever seen and all I can hear is "George Castanza, George Castanza, nervous wreck, George Castanza".
4:25-4:41 is the tiktok audio
I swear, this was the saddest scene for me.
0:22 - tale as old as time.
Everett Peck has passed away!
Duckman will live on!🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
That was such an insane jump in quality over other clips I've seen of this. Damn.
0:27 SENATOR ARMSTRONG?!
Know I can't unsee
This show reminds me of BoJack Horseman if he had a beak.
this one was directed by peter avanzino, from futurama's fame.
This reminds me of a really intense reoccurring trip I had.
The Virgin Whatever Happened To... Robot Jones? Vs. The Chad Duckman
Duckman is The Best Show Ever Made
4:25 i love it with vacations- young😭🤧
This clip made me realize how similar Duckman and Squidward are
This whole episode is perfect 😂
I love the ending!
actually where beatrice is concerned duckmans pretty descent.
Where Beatrice is concerned, she's the only point where Duckman was actually decent.
6:22 sit down stand up open the door don't open the door 😆🤣
Is this the greatest of all Duckman episodes??? Only "America" would come close. But, to quote a Duckman episode, did "the Simpsons do this first" in a "Tree House of Horrors" episode?
duckman531 sorta, the tree house of horror segment was more about him going back in time and then coming back to see how the future is altered, but it wasn't as poignant as this episode, cuz that segment was just visual gags without profound substance, a problem that many fans of the simpsons series tend to see as a profound problem with the show as it is now. The gags seem to be all there are without any profound importance.
mirrors within mirrors, change within change...the awsome insanity duckmam !!
So do something when you know your hearts in it. But follow reason when your doing something so calculated and cold if you put your heart in it, it'd become as warm as Pluto.
Add a reply...🐊
This is like that one jerma stream where he burped
"Joe average doesnt have the constitutiobal right to own a gun"
This aged poorly...
Nah it was ahead of the curb
Well it was in the 90s so it's understandable why it aged poorly
I luv this episode. It's one of my favorites.. To be a comedy it had an excellent point. Thank again fo posting it. =)~
Came for context about beatrice and i thought for some reason that their marriage ended in divorce but found out that she actually passed away and now im sobbing
well... this is an... interesting find indeed
actually their actions spoke louder than this sketch didn't they, they did allow "joe average" to have guns, that being said the implementation of psychological tests would likely have been welcomed given the purpose and object of the amendment would not be harmed
They only had muskets. It's why the first mass shooting in America took an entire British regiment; They only fired once. The second amendment says NOTHING about guns, only arms relative to the time. Let's see... if the Founding Fathers were so afraid of the unwashed masses to give them the right to vote... you had to own land to vote... then they'd hardly give everyone a weapon better than a musket.
Because they're not dumb... right?
@@tskmaster3837 you are just anti gun so that is what you wish their reasoning to be,
1, they wanted to stand as a new class society compared to the caste society of Europe, an important aspect of most European powers was that for one thing commoners were not allowed to carry swords or pistols in public, only soldiers or nobles were allowed that privilige, in the fledgling republic they allowed all to do so
the right to vote was based on property indeed, their reasoning was that those with property paid taxes and thus they should get to decide what was done with the budget, the most important reason was ofcourse that they did not want to end up with a government that took the interests of the masses over the interests of the elite, most of Europe had even more restrictive systems however, you may remember that France kind of fought a revolution for it as well and that this is considdered the end of the early modern period, ergo a major breaking point, (the US revolution was minor news in comparisson because they were not a world power, though it did help to inspire the French version)
The absence of specificity is always in favor of those to whom it applies, that is how legal documents work, the founding fathers were all highly educated, often they had done law studies which were as good as always preceded by the customary liberal arts studies, latin, filosophy, ancient authors were a very prominent part of the curiculum of any university (western universities)
the fact is that they knew very well what they wrote, and given the situation they were in I can confidently say that they did mean for the general public to have arms at their disposal, these arms were meant to make them capable of defending their liberties
now you tell me, can you defend your liberty against tyrany by any modern day force using anything but modern firearms???
oh and there were no laws against anyone owning even cannons either, or against forming militias
i find you very dishonest in your argumentation mostly because you have none, you just reason that they couldn't have forseen modern firearms so they can't have meant for them, but then the first science fiction story (kind of) was written by the romans and I am a monkeys' uncle if the average 18th century notable did not expect that advancements would keep being made in all fields, including firearms.
@@istoppedcaring6209 Na, I'm just anti idiot.
Honestly, FRAMER'S INTENT is such a load of nonsense in the first place that we seem to be conditioned to accept that what NOW needs can be gleamed from what they knew all along back then.
But where's the STATE in your paragraphs? You know, the main entity these UNITED STATE of America that favored over a centralized Government so much so that the first government failed utterly because the Founding Fathers were afraid to give it any power?
That's the Well Regulated Militia part, no Central Army just a bunch of State Militias. Since that changed... that parts gets ignored and we're just left with "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Does that even work by your own arguments? That since the State lost its position of prominence after the Civil War, its position in the Second Amendment went immediately to the individual and "well regulated" somehow became "well, regulated?"
Strict Constitutionalists: "I want this thing but how can I get this from the Constitution? Put some fingers over these words, obfuscate the whole point of the document being flexible and add that thoughts of the Framers can be known from its vague words and still have meaning to whatever modern society it happens to be? I would have gotten away with it too except for you... never mind, I did get away with it."
@@tskmaster3837 The second amendment right to bear arms is still highly valid, even with a centralized military in place. There are two reasons for this. One, while a major part of the second amendment was to allow people to form a militia if needed, it also was to allow them greater defensive capabilities as an individual, whether from a hostile person or the government itself (which, considering the surrounding amendments have to do with protections from the government, would make sense). While we would never need to gather to form a militia to defend our country under any reasonable normal circumstance, a weapon is vital in self defense. Do I agree with where the limit on what the weapon can be is? No. However, the concept of the right to best arms is extremely important. After all, it was was second amendment right behind protected free speech.
Yo. Haha. Fourteen years ago.
I remember this era of UA-cam
Episodes had to be loaded up in three parts, because UA-cam didn't support videos over ten minutes yet
Yep that was annoying.
Brandon Staley could learn a thing a 2 from this so he can stop overanalyzing everything that leads to the Chargers blunders, like that timeout.
THIS IS THE FUNNIES SHIT ON THE PLANET
"Umm Hmm think again girlfriend."
I know the scene at the bed the one’s that sticks with us, but the overarching point’s great, too, if somewhat muddled. If you really genuinely try to factor in the abstract effects of every action you make, that’s not you being prepared. That’s you driving yourself insane. Yes, it is important to have some level of caution. But at a certain point you could freak yourself out so much you might be afraid to live anyway at all. So, just...I dunno, take a little (medically safe) risk, even a little one, and just learn how to adjust to potential fallout. I know this aspect of the episode’s a little more niche, but trust me, there are people who really neeed to hear about it.
Yes, it untethers you from what is and you begin living in what if. I’m glad people have experienced this same feeling and I’m not alone
For those who came for the meme: 4:25
5:54 old duck lady farted 😆🤣
Ow, my ears!
James Madison is wrong Joe average can own as many automatic weapons as he wants
Automatics did not exist when the construction was written, So I'm not sure he would agree
Even the government never allowed or thought that every citizen should have access to a gatling gun or a maxim machine gun when they were invented.
@@mckenzie.latham91 The "Kalthoff repeater" was a musket designed to shoot up to 30 rounds a minute. It was made in 1630 and George Washington wanted to get some for the continental army, but they were too expensive. The founding fathers were also familiar with the "Lorenzoni repeating pistol" which held 7 shots which could be fired quickly. There's also the "Puckle gun", a crank operated revolving naval cannon. On a shipping manifest in 1722 it was referred to as a "machine gun". When the second amendment was written people could own their own cannons, such as the puckle gun, along with warships. The founding fathers were familiar with repeating weapons and understood the concept of an "automatic weapon".
Can’t believe that audio came from fickin duckman
Love Duck
Great taste
4:09
RIP Gilbert Gottfreid
Favorite part is 1:38
I also commonly face the the outlook of turning into leather face, because I like to chop up some people and wear their skin as pants.
Was that first future Duckman a cape fear reference
okay milo murphy
7:04 That led to a chain reaction of accidents.
What logo bug/bug logo is that?
For the people who just came for that one scene, 4:24
Jame Madison would not have said the line about "Joe Average" owning a gun because the 2nd amendment says: The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
Actually it's to warn America of a future serial Killer known by the alias "Joe Average"
Pretty sure they wanted Joe Average to own at least one gun.
Yeah, I love that founders’ government wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect themselves from infringing their own rights. Makes perfect sense.
@AJ Clarke they wrote it so the government couldn't infringe upon our rights after they were gone. Like the British, who were literally confiscating firearms when the American Revolution happened. It was to protect us from futures governments. If you weren't so dense, it would make perfect sense, but I don't think you had much to begin with.
@@aaronbennett3966and the party that is doing the push towards dictatorship is the democrat party and their plants in the Republican Party (Rinos). The party that pushes for a total disarmament of its citizens, always starts by limiting what is used and how much ammo per clip. And with the media in the uniparty’s pocket, they can fearmonger all they want until we are stuck in a purge world.
I say, we make the first purge, the only purge. The politicians that barricade themselves in their houses, will be the only ones removed, that’s what I say.
Good this is why i loved duck man as a kid.
ode to a "hall*
Is that the senator ??!!!!
Oww my ears
ANXIETY
everything everywhere all at duck
Why does he kinda sound like Schlatt lmao
More like why does Schlatt sound like George Costanza?
Can someone explain why the future duck said “ maybe that’s all I need to know “ ( somethin lik this)
It was past duck
He just wanted reassurance. He didn't need to know any more, just to know that he wouldn't regret the choice of marrying Beatrice.
George Constanza
He should have said no lol
Think again, girlfriend
That sounds like the guy from blue blood
4:25 is the scene..
Sorry. That wasn’t Madison. No American would deny the average man the right to defend themselves against intruders and politicians.
man
4:25 the part you came here for