Hachigatsu wrote:
But still, the painter is always right about his own work. That's the bottom line.
The idea that an artist is always right is certainly open to debate. Some artists - and not just crazy painters selling to foolish collectors - are dead wrong about their work. (Check out Poe's "Philosophy of Composition," in which he "explains" how he wrote "The Raven" - few scholars put any stock in it, except as an example of an artist completely clueless about his own creative processes.)

Moreover, art is not a dead thing set in stone; it lives on, subject to new interpretations as time passes and the cultural context changes. As Borges said (referring to literature, but applicable to other fields), art is not something that can be reduced to a single, never-changing meaning like a mathematical formula; even a single work can never be exhausted, because the meaning grows from a "dialogue" between the audience and the work.

To a certain extent, debates on this board are an example of that dialogue. It's part of what keeps a film interesting decades after its release.

In this context, what Honda said is interesting in terms of establishing his intentions (although given the lapse of time between the film and the interview, he could possibly have been revising his original intent or even misremembering). However, even if his statement is accurate, it can never truly settle the matter. Ultimately, what is more important: What Honda said in an interview or what he put up on screen?

I would say the latter. And the ending of KK V G is ambiguous: either Godzilla chased Kong away from Japan, or Kong left of his own accord after sending Godzilla to the bottom of the ocean. Since the winner is not clear, does this mean it's a tie? Depends on how you define "tie," I suppose - and on how you define victory. If "victory" was saving Japan from Godzilla, then it would be fair to say that Kong won at least a short-term victory. If the only victory that counts is taking Godzilla out permanently, then Kong doesn't win.