Nuperman not fake, never was.

[W8IN4KAL-EL]

And my point is that that's a useless discussion. Why does it matter who is the "real" version of the character in an unreal canon? It's a useless title to have.

then using your logic what is the point in even reading a comic much less having an opinion about anything?

[FishyZombie]

To echo others, there is no real superman. And if there were, i doubt the deciding factor on his realness would be Lois Lane's hair.

[Doctor Bifrost]

Nuperman was a total fake. Every version of Superman is fake, they're all just fictional characters on paper. The hoopla over which of Nuperman or Superdad is the "real" Superman is nonsense because of this.

Oh, I agree! The other day I was doing a crossword puzzle, and I asked a friend "How many heads did Cerberus have?" He said, "Three."

"You're wrong!" I shouted triumphantly! "Cerberus doesn't have three heads, or one head, or any number of heads - because Cerberus does not exist and therefore can't have heads or anything else! Not even zero heads - it is simply not the case that Cerberus has any number of heads, because no such thing as Cerberus exists!"

Boy, was his face red! For some reason he doesn't help me with crossword puzzles anymore, though. I think he's sulking.

***

Actually, it is quite common for people discussing works of fiction to talk - comfortably, happily, and with great interest - about what is meant to be considered "true" and what is mean to be considered "false" within the context of the narrative setting. You know, they'll say things like "So is Ned Stark really Jon Snow's father?", and then they'll discuss the question on the basis of information, clues, and hints supplied within the fictional setting.

Commonly - and particularly on discussion boards devoted to the fiction - they won't even feel the need to add "within the context of the narrative setting," because it's generally understood that that's what they mean.

And if somebody comes along as says, "Of course Ned Stark isn't Jon Snow's real father, because they're not real - they don't exist, and therefore do not have the biological features associated with being father and son," well, it's generally understood that such a person is not participating in the same kind of discussion. My belief is that such people should be responded to politely but briefly, and then the other folks can get on with their conversation. (Not everyone agrees with me on the "politely" part.)

Of course, with DC characters, it can get a little more complicated, because there have been a number of separate narrative settings over the decades (Golden Age, Silver Age, post-CoIE, The New 52, and so on.) Just like the narrative settings of the original Sherlock Holmes stories and the Elementary TV show are different. And, of course, entire Ph.D. theses can be written on how these conversations signify when readers disagree, writers include contradictions (unintentionally or intentionally) in their work, and so on.

In the meantime, however, people discussing fiction will continue to use the phrase "did that really happen?" as a shorthand for "are we meant to imagine that this event is part of the narrative setting in which the story we are discussing takes place?" Because it's shorter and, in context, still fairly clear.