In fact, you can generalize most fiction that way. Most fiction follows the formula of status-quo-shaken-by-new-whatever. Think of almost any movie, book, or game, and you'll generally find that to be the premise. How else does a story start? It wouldn't be interesting if you just told stories about regular, everday bullshit (i.e. a story where nothing gets shaken up), and you can't really start right in the middle of something unless you want the reader/watcher/player to have absolutely no idea about the context of your story. You *always* start right after something shakes up the status quo. You don't start too early because you don't want people to get bored, so you start right after, essentially making it exciting because you're jumping right in, but not so far in that you can't explain what's going on.
I suppose he almost has a point stating that they all have a "stable but fundamentally flawed routine" they exist in before things get shaken up, and maybe about the story catalyst usually being a character, and usually one to whom attitudes are initially hostile, but those are also standard elements of fiction. If your characters or their surroundings aren't flawed, where does character growth come from? And yes, character growth is absolutely necessary. Story catalyst usually being a character? I suppose that's a trapping of movies regardless, since they tend to heavily revolve around characters, but especially so in something animated. Events are less exciting than tangible characters to the average person, and characters make for more immediacy and something visually identifiable. But still, from the beginning of this movie you feel that the world is at odds with the cute little character on the screen. He's lovable and the world itself is bleak, barren, and depressing. Even if the other robot had never showed up, there would be an inherent opposition there that could easily lead to a story. He's basically just ignoring that fact entirely, because the first portion of the movie features only two characters, between whom there is only friendship: Wall-E himself and his roach buddy.
But regarding hostility... at the heart of every story is conflict, as any author knows, and without it you have nothing. True, the mechanic of having the initially hostile character turn out to be friendly later on is overused, and in kid-friendly movies in particular you often find less focus on villains from the outset, but if you're trying to tell me Wall-E didn't use this to good effect, you're insane. Forget how overused the mechanic might be. Normally it's a mediocre scheme that brings average results, but here it was done masterfully and with great emotion. Besides, almost any good character dynamic is going to have conflict, because that's what moves story. Two fast friends who never bicker or have doubts about each other make for a story that's boring as shit. Look at The Lord of the Rings. The least compelling moments in those books are when all the little hobbits are all happy with each other and just doing whatever. The real intensity and intrigue comes when you see those relationships break down or become strained, whether it's internal or through outside sources. When Sam and Frodo are trekking along and Frodo stops trusting Sam completely due to Gollum's influence, for instance, things suddenly get a good deal more interesting.
