In the 1993 film Dog King, a military dog named Hailong carries an explosive pack away and dies in an explosion. Years later, several reports said director Yao Shougang had described using real explosives for the scene, causing a participating military dog to die on camera. When the story resurfaced around 2021, viewers criticized not only the film but the ethics of using a real animal's death for cinematic effect.

A sacrifice scene many viewers remembered

Dog King tells a wartime story about training and using military dogs. In the film, the dog Hailong carries an explosive pack away and dies. Many viewers had once understood it as a moving fictional sacrifice.

The later controversy was that reports repeatedly said the scene was not merely acting or special effects. Sina's repost of Zhengguan News said Yao Shougang discussed the scene in an earlier program and described using real explosives on a trained military dog so the performance would look real.

Realism cannot be bought with life

The director later explained that money and technical conditions were limited. Some reports also repeated claims that the dog came from a military-dog base and was old or ill. Those explanations can be recorded as explanations, but they do not remove the cruelty: an animal trained to obey humans was sent into an action designed to end in death.

Lack of technology, lack of money, or the dog's age cannot make a real explosion reasonable. Euthanasia should be an animal-welfare decision supported by veterinary judgment, not a death arranged to complete a shot.

A retired military dog is not a disposable prop

Military dogs, police dogs and working dogs carry tasks assigned by humans. Their obedience and trust should create a deeper duty of care, not make them easier to sacrifice.

The most painful part is that the dog could not understand 'artistic realism' or 'production limits.' It only followed training and command. Turning that obedience into a path toward a real explosive was a betrayal of animal trust.

A late boycott and a memory that should stay

Around 2021, the old story resurfaced online. Many viewers gave low ratings to the film and to other works by the director. This archive keeps the more reasoned part of that criticism rather than abusive language.

The reasonable criticism is clear: limited technology in 1993 did not justify killing an animal; a retired military dog deserved care or adoption rather than death on set; later explanations still framed the act through cinematic effect; and the boycott asked whether film production must have firm animal-protection boundaries.

Why this is recorded

The incident happened decades ago, but it should not be erased by saying 'times were different.' A period can explain why awareness came late; it cannot turn a real death into a necessary sacrifice.

This archive records the real animal behind the fictional name Hailong. No industry, artwork or grand narrative should treat a life that cannot say no as a consumable object.

Timeline

• Around 1993: Dog King was filmed and released, including the scene in which a military dog carries away explosives and dies.
• Around 2008: Reports said Yao Shougang discussed the explosion scene in a program or interview and acknowledged using real explosives.
• Around 2021: The story resurfaced online and drew renewed criticism and boycott calls.

Public Sources

• 电影网 1905：《犬王》影片资料页
• 新浪转载正观新闻：导演追求电影真实效果炸死军犬，被全网抵制
• 澎湃号：他瞒着所有人炸死军犬，还称这是为了艺术
• 香港01：《犬王》中國導演刻意炸死退役軍犬
• 搜狐转载：导演追求电影真实效果炸死军犬，被全网抵制