And because it is the negative it could be 3 stops overexposed and it could still look perfect once finished.
It would depend on the film stock, and the process used to correct it, but I'd say a properly exposed shot is always going to look better than one that has been adjusted in post-production, especially if it was originally overexposed by three entire F-stops.
Film and video processes are often quite different, especially when you're talking negative film rather than reversal stock.
Plenty of cinematographers regularly overexpose the film a stop or two, then 'print it down' to create a denser negative, one that stands up to being messed with better than a perfectly exposed negative.
Obviously what constitutes well-exposed is subjective, but if the ideal image is the goal, then exposing film at something other than optimum is often exactly what needs to be done.
Video and digital are very much more like reversal film stock, where you have less latitude, and exposure is more critical. Main dif is that while underexposure is death on reversal film, overexposure is death in digital, because the highlights are GONE.