The story in part 3 was the best part. Yeah it was filled with some odd plot holes, but after two films about drugs and 80's big business it was nice to move on to the social issues of immanent domain and corporate globalization. They didn't have a choice with Lewis... she didn't want to be in the film at all. They had to beg her just for the cameo.
I think the problem I have is that people bash 3 and defend 2. 2 is pretty stupid. Mind you it's put together better narrative wise, but that robot design was so illogical and the whole "lets put the brain of the cities most wanted criminal and crime boss in a killer robot! It'll be great!" bit just lost it for me. I like 2, I like 3, but they are about the same, 3 isn't really the dog of the franchise by any means.
About the remakes...Nope not really. There are rules for remakes, the primary one is you aren't allowed to do a remake until all the principal cast is dead.
I attempted to watch the KK remake, the bad acting by Will Smith's little boy (Who is NOT an actor and has no business in ANY big budget feature) ran me out after about 15 minutes. That one was DOA anyway. The first Karate Kid was loosely based on a true story. So you don't get to change the setting, and the martial art and the race of the kid and virtually everything else. I mean you can, but then why call it the Karate Kid other than to trick people into seeing it?
They only exceptions I can think of that I've watched are King Kong, which was pretty awesome despite what the critics said and Fright Night. FN is a totally different film, I'm not even sure you could consider it a remake, but I think they did a good job on that one. Unlike the Karate Kid, the original fright night wasn't a timeless classic by any means. Most people outside of horror buffs had never even heard of it. So I guess it didn't seem like a blatant cash-in and that's why I gave it a free pass.