Not Welles' original screenplay

The ads for the DVD of this film claim it is "based on" Orson Welles' original screenplay. Maybe "based on" but it certainly does not follow the screenplay, and departs from the original on many points. I have not read the screenplay, but I would appreciate comments from someone who has. Watching the released Welles' version and the A&E version back to back, my impression is that even cut the Welles' version is a classic, while the A&E version, while well-acted, is just another made-for-tv movie. In particular: it does not include the famous Welles' voice-over narration. It leaves out several scenes and shortens others. Of the scenes it adds, the most memorable are the childish version of Skull and Bones, which is pure Welles, and the spoiled rich man discovering the history of the town that does not even mention the Ambersons, which may be Welles. More important is the change in tone. Where Welles is nostalgic about the lost glory of the past, this version has none of that. The rich are corrupt through and through. The Oedipus complex, which is at most hinted at by Welles, becomes shoved in our face, as mother and son enjoy lingering kisses on the lips -- which makes the spoiled young man's love for Lucy, his only redeaming feature, dubious. Also the great house of the Amberson's is clearly European, not American. If you've read the screenplay, I'd particularly like to know how Welles ends the film. The A&E ending is essentially the same as the 1942 ending.