Is there room for different opinions, here?
Personally, I have never found directors who shoot such exaggerated amount of footage impressive. Oh, for sure it is a logistics achievement, but artistically and business wise it only demonstrates weakness. They essentially 'shoot' twice: first on set and then a second time during editing.
The ratio of total footage to the final film cut is always intriguing, and says a lot about the director. For certain content a total of 3 hours of footage may be condensed to a 1 hour program. A ratio of 3:1. But when you are shooting 5 or more minutes for every 1 that makes in the final cut.....meh.
There are different schools of thought here. To me, a director and crew who can shoot as close to 1:1 ratio and produce a decent product are far more impressive. Of course, 1:1 is never achieved on any project -and it is always a good idea to shoot more as it gives options while editing- but where do you draw the line?
There is not one perfect formula or right way. But I know PJ and his ways are the other extreme.