First, we should chip away at your supposed adjective constructions in "The super bright red-orange smokey fire". Obviously, "the" is not an adjective. "Super" in this example is an adverb, not an adjective (=very, extremely). "Red-orange" adds a complication of adjective compounding (not every language that has adjectives allows compounding of adjectives). Languages that are robust for adjectives don't necessarily have an adjective-forming derivational process turning "smoke" into "smokey". So the essence of the question is, how do you say "bright red fire" in a language without adjectives, as a distinct part of speech. Even better, though, is the question "how do you determine that there is a part of speech 'adjective' in a given language?".
I start by assuming that there are certain words which probably describe attributes of entities, for example "yellow; big; old". In English, "yellow" can be a verb or an adjective – the morphology tells you that in "The floor is yellowing", it is a verb, and in "The floor is yellower today than it was yesterday", it is an adjective. "Big" is different, in that it cannot be a verb and does not inflect like a verb (most people don't accept "embiggen": the point is that "big" by itself cannot function as a verb).
There is also a class of words that we call verbs, for example "grow, eat, resemble". You cannot add the superlative suffix (an indicator of being an adjective), nor the comparative although there is the homophonous agentive suffix -er which could confuse the matter. Also to be included in the list of verbs are "dirty, open, dry". Are these adjectives that become verbs via zero derivation, or are then verbs that become adjectives via zero derivation. Or, is there a class of category-neutral predicates in English which are non-committal for the adjective / verb distinction?
The situation in Bantu languages is that there are very few hard-core adjectives. The reason is that verbs and adjectives are composed of a root plus other stuff – perhaps a derivational suffix, or an inflectional prefix / suffix. Especially in Logoori, there is no compelling argument for the existence of a lexical category "adjective", instead there are attributive roots which can be affixed with -ɪ or -ʊ (there is a subtle semantic difference having to do with 'describing a state') to derive formal adjectives, or they can be further affixed with -h- to derive a verb. There is robust agreement, the form of which tells you whether the word is formally an adjective (nominal-series agreement) or a verb (verb-series agreement).
There is an attributive predicate -kʊʊng- meaning something like "age, become old, grow up". You can say ɪmbwa ɪngʊʊngʊ 'old dog', ɪziimbwa zingʊʊngʊ 'old dogs' using the derivational suffix ʊ and nominal agreement – thus the word is behaving as an adjective. Or, you can say ɪmbwa yaakʊʊnga 'dog which is old', ɪziimbwa zyaakʊʊnga 'dogs which are old'. Word form is how you tell whether something is behaving like an adjective vs. a verb.
The thing that Logoori brings to the table is the fact that certain (attributive) predicates are fundamentally neutral w.r.t. POS. Logoori does provide clear evidence via word-formation processes (and syntactic correlates) that some word forms are adjectives, vs. verbs. If you insist on using English as your conceptual metalanguage, you will tend to think of "yellow" as an adjective (I don't have a good synchronic argument that "dry; open" are lexically verbs or nouns).
CL man be-tall this, which just makes you think circularly about be-tall as still having an adjective, you can think of “the man towers” as a rough parallel that uses an actual verb in English to really just meanbe-taller-than. In the same way that we can say, “The man towers [over others]” in English, Vietnamese people can say, “The man talls”.